>> I am told we have a quorum, so I'm going to call the meeting to order. And if I could ask all of the faculty to rise as you are able for the reading of the Memorial Resolutions. I would like to recognize Professor Brent Hueth to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Peter Dorner. >> Pete Dorner, on the death of Professor Emeritus Pete Dorner. Professor Emeritus Peter Dorner died on June 4th, 2018 at the age of 93. He is survived by his wife, Lois, and five children. He was reared on a small dairy farm. Technology. In Luxemburg, Wisconsin, in Luxemburg, Wisconsin, and educated at the University of Wisconsin, B.S., and the University of Tennessee, M.S. and Harvard University, PhD. Through his path-breaking research on institutional and structural change as part of the international economic development and his major leadership positions within and outside the university, Professor Dorner was instrumental in internationalizing the University of Wisconsin Madison. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Let me call upon Professor Adena Rissman to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Donald Field. >> Professor Don Field, a University of Wisconsin faculty member since 1988 served as the associate dean of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences and director of the School of Natural Resources before retiring in 2011. Professor Field received national and international awards for his research on connections among social ecology, rural communities, natural resources and parks. He cofounded the journal Society and Natural Resources and was the National Park Services' first senior scientist in sociology. A prolific writer and photographer, he had an extraordinary ability to guide diverse scholars and students to the service of natural resources and society. >> Thank you. Let me call upon Professor Leon Shohet to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus James Nordman. >> James Emory Nordman was a soft-spoken and patient teacher, a talented singer and creative engineer. He was born in upper Michigan in 1934. He and his wife, Clare, raised six children in Madison, Princeton, New Jersey and Grenoble, France. He passed away on November 21st, 2017. He graduated from Marquette University with an undergraduate degree in 1957 and received his PhD from the University of Wisconsin Madison in 1962. At that time, Jim joined the faculty of the electrical engineering department teaching and mentoring many students until his retirement in 1996. Jim and his graduate students contributed to many research advances in both low-temperature and high-temperature superconductivity. His research deeply emphasized fluxomic devices based on Josephson junctions and other systems using both low and high-temperature superconductors. He was a member of the technical staff at RCA Laboratories from 1967 to '68, and a visiting collaborating at Air Liquide in Grenoble, France in 1972 and '73. In his retirement, Jim was able to focus on pastimes that brought him great joy, including working on his 1941 Lincoln Zephyr convertible. He also enjoyed singing with the choirs at Blessed Sacrament Church and the Choral Union at the University of Wisconsin. >> Thank you, Leon. Let me call upon Professor Jim Zagzebski to present the Memorial Resolutions for Professor Emeritus Melvin Siedband. >> Dr. Melvin Siedband, Emeritus Professor of medical physics and radiology passed away this past February. He was 89. Melvin was recruited to the medical physics section of radiology by our founder, John Cameron. Prior to this, he served as an engineer with Westinghouse, specializing both in radar systems and in x-ray design and control. He has many patents on his work. Mel played an important role in the early development of our medical physics curriculum by serving as instructor of our first graduate course on x-ray imaging and by developing a unique lab class where students were able to actively participate in tests of hospital x-ray systems. He organized and co-instructed radiological physics for residents, a crucial course for future radiologists. And he continued his research on new x-ray system development, including portable systems. He held leadership positions in biomedical engineering and in medical physics. Most import to Mel, though, was his family, including his late wife, Dottie, and his sons Richard and Mark, as well as their families and grandchildren. >> And let me recognize Professor Thomas Schaub to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Jeffrey Steele. >> Jeffrey Alan Steele passed away on Saturday, May 5th, this past year, 2018 in Madison. He was 71-years-old. He got his B.A. from Carlton College and received his PhD in English literature from Harvard University. For 37 years in the English department, Jeff was a master teacher and beloved mentor, teaching nearly 7,000 undergraduates and hundreds of graduate students. The University of Wisconsin twice honored him with a distinguished teaching award, including the system-wide James R. Underkofler Teaching Award. As a specialist in 19th century American literature and culture, his courses focused not only on canonical figures, such as Melville, Hawthorne and James, but also in his signature course on American women writers, lesser known authors whose importance Jeff helped to establish in his scholarship. Jeff became a leading scholar of Margaret Fuller, Ralph Waldo Emerson's friend and co-editor, who had been almost forgotten. Jeff helped found the Margaret Fuller Society, serving as its president for many years. Few knew of Jeff's heart problems. His death came as a shock to his colleagues and students. Jeff loved his family dearly. He is survived by his wife, Jocelyn Carol Riley, their two sons, Brendon Riley Steele and Doran Riley Steele and three precious granddaughters. >> Thank you, and I'm very delighted that Professor Steele's wife, Jocelyn Riley, is with us today. Thank you very much for coming. [ Applause ] That is the end of Memorial Resolutions. You may all be seated, and I thank all of you for coming. All right. What is going to happen next is you're going to listen to four people in a row. I'm going to give a very short update. UC chair Rick Amasino is going to give an even shorter update. Interim human resources officer Mark Walters is going to say something about the titling and compensation survey. And Patrick Sheehan, our director of workforce relations is also going to say a few words. And then we're going to open up for questions. So, if you have questions, write them down, and we'll take them all together after you've heard from all four of us. When we met last month we were on the cusp of an election, which has now taken place. And I've got a few updates on that. In terms of our student turnout, I should say that both students and local election officials gave very positive reviews for our voter education efforts, and the resulting turnout in the big ten voter challenge. Turnout on polling places was higher than the last midterms by about 1,300 votes. About 87% of those registered at the student polling places appeared to have voted. And there were no reported undue delays around the ID issues. In case you're wondering, the big ten challenge will not be settled until next August. There is an organization that will be matching all of our students and all of the students at other big ten schools to polling places across the country, since they vote across the country. And we will not know until August who won that challenge. We are planning ahead for the change in gubernatorial administrations on January 7th. We've got a number of people from campus who are either advising or who have moved into positions with the transition team. So we're in close conversation with them, but it is still very early in the upcoming Evers administration. They don't have a lot of their team in place, and it is not entirely clear who you talk to about what yet. We are also remaining in close contact and talking about the upcoming budget with members of the legislature. I think everyone expects the budget process is probably going to start just a little later since the Evers administration has to put their budget together within the space of about a month. And there are still quite a few uncertainties about exactly how that is going to play out, particularly with split government in the state. I should let you know that the Board of Regents, on Thursday, we're meeting on lacrosse. We'll be making the recommendations about faculty and staff compensation, and all of that was made public this afternoon. The Regents will be asking for two 3% increases, one each year, and asking that those increases be fully funded. As some of you know, the state has given us about 70% of the money that we need to fund mandated pay increases in recent past years. So the request is 3%, 3% fully funded, which would be a change from, for instance, the two 4% we got in this past biennium. I will note that I and others are also very engaged in federal issues, particularly monitoring developments relating to the new proposed guidelines on Title IX. I was in D.C. last week and met with Tammy Baldwin on this topic and a number of others, and we are following that quite closely. In case you missed it, the National Science Foundation on November 20th released its latest rankings in terms of research expenditures. We remained in sixth place on those rankings. That's good news. We're maintaining our research strength. I personally, like many of you, would have liked to have seen us move back in the top five. That turns out it's going to be a lot more challenging because the University of Pennsylvania jumped from number 13 to number three last year and have stayed in that place. And I've been told that they added in a number of medical school and hospital expenditures that they were not previously adding in, which has completely moved them up above us. And so we're going to have to displace someone beyond the usual suspects to move back up. But we're working on it. The expenditure data, of course, lags the coming in of major awards by quite a bit, and we've gotten a number of major federal awards. There's several more out there, but, you know, expenditures probably will not follow for another year or two. So, you know, things are moving in all the right directions, and we'll see how it goes. We're so closely grouped to this school just immediately above us. As Norman Drinkwater said, it's a matter of a couple big federal grants and when you spend them. So, spend them fast if you've got some big federal grants out there. Don't hold back on your expenditures. I want to thank all of you who have been part of contributing to our research strength, and not just in federal dollars but in everything else. A comment on Bucky's Tuition Promise, as you know, it's a big new reportability initiative for low-income students in the state of Wisconsin. We now have the final numbers for fall admissions. And just to remind all of you, if you weren't listening the last time I talked about this, this is a promise to any student who is, two conditions, a student who is admitted to UW Madison and whose family is in the bottom half of the income distribution in the state of Wisconsin. Which means they earn 56,000 or less. If you meet those two conditions, we will guarantee if you come to UW Madison we will provide the scholarship paid to cover four years of tuition and fees. We want to make it very clear that we want those students here, and we will work with their families to make it affordable. It turns out that about 20% of our incoming Wisconsin freshmen are covered by Bucky's Tuition Promise, and that is an increase in the number of low-income students here. We have students covered coming from 65 of Wisconsin's 72 counties. And you can see them from rural counties. You can see them from more urban counties, which was exactly the point of that program. And I hope that those numbers continue to increase. As I noted before, one of our biggest challenges is to get people to actually understand we're for real here, and we mean it when we say it. Last Thursday we celebrated the legacy of the late Mercile Lee. I suspect some of you knew her. She was the founder and the driving force behind the Chancellor's and the Powers-Knapp scholarship programs, which changed the trajectory of a lot of students by giving them full scholarships to UW. Both of these are merit-based programs seeking to attract academically outstanding students from groups that have historically been underrepresented in higher education. Together, these two programs have created educational opportunities for more than 2,600 undergraduates, and as of this moment, there are 525 Chancellor's and Power-Knapp scholars on campus. And should you be interested, we actually have a major gift from Phil and Elizabeth Gross which is matching money for people to give additional funding for these scholarships which will help grow these programs even more. And then let me end with a final piece of very good news. We have two new inductees to the AAAS. Chang-Beom Eom and Donata Oertel are among the 416 fellows recognized for their scientifically or socially distinguished efforts to advance science and its applications. Eom Is the Raymond R. Holton Chair Professor in Engineering and the Theodore H. Geballe Professor of materials science engineering. And Oertel is the Mary Herman and Lucien Rubinstein Distinguished Chair of Neuroscience. So congratulations to the two of them and to their departments. We will have our December commencement in a couple of weeks. Former Baseball Commissioner and UW alum Bud Selig will be at that commencement. I should also refer to him as Professor Selig because for the last three years he's also been teaching a course in our history department, and he is himself a history grad. So he has many connections to campus, and I'm truly delighted that he was willing to come and be part of our upcoming commencement celebration. And that is the end of my comments. Rick, you're up next. >> Okay. I just have a quick note to let you know the status of the two professor title resolutions that had their first readings last month. Both during last month's meeting and in communications from some of you afterwards, several important questions were raised. So the University committee has remanded these back to the originating committee for further consideration. Once this committee has addressed your comments and concerns, we expect these items to come back to the senate for action. Meanwhile, if you have any further comments or questions about these resolutions, direct them to the University Committee or the secretary of the faculty. >> Thank you, Rick. Now let me call upon Mark Walters, our interim chief of human resources officer. >> Good afternoon. So I just wanted to provide you with an update on the title and total comp project that we have going right now. And how many folks are aware of the project that's going on right now? It's been going on for about a year. It loos like most of you. And so we've been working on that for a number of months as far as, or say a year, as far as going through the various things. But I wanted to provide you with sort of a background before we go forward with that as far as the update. So this really came out of the merging of our two personnel programs, excuse me, the merging of our two personnel programs that we received the authority in 2015 to go forward with that. And it was really the cornerstone of our HR design strategic plan as far as to attract, retain and engage and develop talent to meet UW Madison's needs. Our current compensation titling structure is many decades old and is really not market-informed to help us go forward and figure out where do our positions lie in regard to how competitive we are in the market and the real need for a modernized compensation titling structure in the future. And so, we're proceeding with this, and again, we've been really involved with it for at least a year now as far as going forward. Now just a point of clarification, the faculty title and salary structures are not part of this project going forward. But the benefits area is as far as the nonstate-provided benefits, which would include things like family leave and the leave areas and those types of things. So I just wanted to mention that the faculty are part of that as far as the benefit structure. And we hope to implement these new structures sometime, or I should say, identify and finalize these structures in the latter part of 2019. So I just wanted to give you a little background as far as going forward of where this came from. So, as far as the TTC project core components that you see on the screen here, it really boils down to defining the work and linking the pay to the benefits as far as going forward with all the project activities. And the areas that we have completed in early 2018 was really identifying the job groups as far as categorizing the work by function and type. As well as identifying the levels within those areas as far as going forward. Were there folks in the room that were a part of that as far as the job framework, identifying that? If you could raise your hand if any of you were involved in that. Okay, I thought there was some faculty involved. But anyway, so we've completed that work as far as defining those job groups and the level, the levels and going forward. But one of the big heavy lifts that's going on right now is the creation of our titles and standard job descriptions as far as creating baselines for the roles that have been identified. And we'll talk about that in a little bit. But that once having the defining, have the activities of defining the work. We're moving towards linking those, that work, to pay and benefits. And doing a market analysis and then finally doing the total compensation as far as how it all fits together. So this really identifies the buckets of work that are going on with the title and total comp project going forward. And so, this next slide actually identifies how the job framework has been identified. And so you'll see with this one, this is the financial job group that identifies this area. We have 24 of these job groups as far as for the campus, for all of our staff positions. And then we have job subgroups within each of these job groups. So you'll see in this area, in the financial area, we have the accounting area, financial planning and budgeting. The bursar area as well as procurement. And then from that, we would have titles, as well as the contribution level within those areas. So this gives you an idea of the job framework that we established in early spring of 2018. So, the heavy lifting that's going on right now with the project involves the areas identified in this next slide where we have the creation of standard job descriptions, the market analysis, the development of pay policies, compensation policies, as well as the benefit structure, doing a benefit preference survey, which I'll talk about in a minute. As well as a benefits valuation analysis. For the standard job descriptions, what we're doing is we're really changing the way that we capture the descriptions of the jobs for staff positions. Some of you are aware that we have job descriptions that are very lengthy for some areas. And that really creates problems for us when we're looking at matching those to the market. And we'll talk about that in a little bit. But there's been a lot of engagement on those standard job descriptions to really identify that work. The pay data market analysis where we're compiling and analyzing the pay data against the labor market so that we can price our jobs competitively in the future and the compensation policy development creating these policies and practices that we can make sure that we're paying employees for performance and contributions that we have the tools to do that. And so those things are happening right now as far as going forward. With the benefit structure, we are really doing two things. We are looking at, we are collecting benefit preference information from employees right now, from faculty and staff, to identify preferences for faculty and staff to see what are those things that employees value as far as their benefits. But I want to make it very clear that this is not a strategy to identify those areas that rank out at the top, and then the areas that don't rank out at the top, that we're going to look at diminishing those benefits as far as going forward. I know there's been some thought that we're actually using this to figure out ways to diminish benefits. That's not the case. We're looking at the intent of this is to enhance benefits as we go forward. Things like family leave. We already know that other, our competitors, do not offer family leave, or should say we don't offer family leave while our competitors do. So looking at those types of things. And so we are collecting that information right now. The survey was rolled out on Monday of last week. We already have a 20% response rate with that survey, which is about 5,000 employees on the Madison campus have already completed that, which is great as far as going forward. Then at the same time, we're doing a benefit valuation analysis to see how our benefits stack up with our competitors in the higher ed space, which would include our big ten counterparts. It includes our AAU counterparts also. We've identified the private higher ed institutions to see how our benefits stack up. We're also looking at the external labor market as far as private sector and other areas going forward. And so with all these things, we're going to see various options emerge as far as where we should pursue some changes to our benefits packages. Now keep in mind, as I mentioned, we're not looking at changing the Wisconsin retirement system benefits or the health insurance benefits, those things that are provided through the state of Wisconsin as state employees. So we're really looking at those peripheral things, and leave being one of them as well as far as vacation and sick leave going forward. And so with all these things, we're going to see these options emerge as far as how we can proceed and certainly vetting those things and talking through that with stakeholders, life share governance groups, to talk about where we should we go or the direction we should go as far as vetting those things. And then ultimately providing recommendations to campus leadership as we go forward. So, I just wanted to mention the standard job description area, because this is a big change management aspect for the campus, if you could advance the slide, that right now we have job descriptions for staff that are all over the map. We have some job descriptions that are six, seven pages long with task lists. We have job descriptions that are sort of a one-to-one relationships with every position on campus where we have 15,000 different job descriptions out there. We're really trying to streamline that so we can match those jobs to the market so we can have market-informed pay structures, as well as the actual titles. So that when you see a title, you know that's what the job is doing. Right now, in many ways, we don't have that where these titles do not have any relevancy when candidates are looking at these jobs. When employees on campus are looking at these jobs. So, we're really trying to create standard job descriptions that are clear and concise. A couple of sentences as far as the summary. Then some various responsibility areas, four to seven responsibility areas with some customization, some knowledge skills and abilities identified for these jobs. These jobs are not, these standard job descriptions are not meant to identify everything that that person does. We see that really resting with things like performance expectations to the performance management, as well as the things like operating procedures and those types of things. This is a major cultural shift for our campus because again, for many of our jobs, most of our jobs, we have a one-to-one relationship where everyone has a customized job description going forward. And so, I just want to mention that as we're going through this process, that this is a big change. We have over 650 standard job descriptions that have been identified. We have a team of about 380 subject matter experts that are looking at these right now to provide adjustments, to polish them going forward. And so it's a pretty heavy lift as far as what's going on right now in the month of December going forward. So I wanted to just point that out as we go forward. So my last, the last slide I wanted to point out as far as the next steps. The next steps with the TTC project. The fourth quarter, which essentially ending with this month, we're collecting all the feedback from those subject matter experts for those standard job descriptions. As I mentioned, we're conducting the employee benefits preference survey. And we're working with Mercer. Now Mercer is the outside vendor that is actually, who's actually going forward helping us with the employee benefits preference survey, as well as the market analysis and the benefit valuation assessment. They are the ones that basically are experts in the field in this area. So this isn't something that we're doing on our own. We've employed an organization that does this as their primary business going forward. And so, we're going to be working with them to identify market benchmarks and doing the market analysis. And then continuing to enhance our change management and communication strategies as far as going forward. We've beefed up our resources in this area as far as looking at rolling out more forums and these types of things so that employees, faculty and staff, can see all the things that we're doing. In the first quarter of next year, we're going to analyze all of that feedback we're getting on these standard job descriptions and modify those. Then we're also going to be starting to roll these out for employees to look at. A very massive effort when we have 15,000 plus employees that are going to be looking at this. But we want to get their feedback. And that's going to continue when they sit down with their supervisors and managers and talk about the standard job description as we go forward. Because we want to make sure we get this right, that that information is correct. Because it doesn't do anyone any good to have these things not be correct as far as moving forward. And so, we also are going to take the benefit value analysis and the benefits preference survey data, and we're going to look at that and see what emerges from that as far as possible options going forward when we have that. And looking at working on the, we're going to be working on the pay policies and the practices going forward and really working with the stakeholders and all the things that are going to be emerging. I will say that a few of us in this room have been working on this for a long period of time. We're starting to see the products emerge from this as far as going forward. And it's very fulfilling to see that go forward. And now is where we're going to see the massive engagement with the campus as far as all these things. And am I going to stand up here and say that everyone is going to be happy with everything that comes out with this? No, I'm not going to say that. But we certainly want to make sure that people have the input into this, and their input is considered as we're making changes going forward and working with stakeholders to get this right. So thank you. >> Mark, if I can summarize what you need from faculty is you need the faculty to tell everyone in their department to fill out their benefits preference survey. And for those who supervise staff, which is a good number of faculty, they need to be aware of this because this is going to start coming at them. We've had lots and lots of governance input from the other two staff governance groups. But the faculty are going to start being affected now if you supervise staff as they start looking at these changes in titles and in job descriptions. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, good. All right. Thank you. Let me know call on Patrick Sheehan, the director of workforce relations. >> Thank you, Chancellor. And thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all today. I'm here to present about the personnel file and reference check policy revisions that are currently in progress here. As UW Madison is committed to promoting a campus environment free from sexual violence and sexual harassment. To meet this goal, the Board of Regents at their June meeting directed UW institutions to adopt policies to prevent sexual harassment and sexual violence and implement those policies on or before January 1, 2019. The portions of the draft policies are included in your electronic documents today. They're draft documents that really have been created in consultation and collaboration with a variety of shared governance groups across campus, as well as other campus stakeholders to meet those objectives. The first portion, the first policy is regarding personnel files, and there's three substantive revisions that are being made to the personnel file policies in reflection of the Board of Regents policies. First is indicating that violations of sexual violence and sexual harassment policies must go into the employee's personnel file. It may not be removed. The second is that if an employee leaves during an active investigation into an allegation of sexual harassment or sexual violence against them, the issue under investigation must be documented in that employee's personnel file. And that documentation may be removed at the conclusion of the investigation if that individual is found to have not been responsible for that allegation. The third area is that UW Madison employee personnel files must be shared with other UW and state institutions upon hire. So if employees move from UW Madison to another state agency or system institution that those personnel files travel with them upon hire. The second policy that's seeing revisions is regarding reference checks. There are two areas that have some substantive modifications. The first is that UW Madison must disclose violations of sexual harassment and sexual violence policies to any employer when that university is contacted for a reference check. And the second is that UW Madison must conduct reference checks. And the university must ask about sexual violence and sexual harassment during the reference check. So reference checks have always been best practice and something we strongly encourage. With these revisions to the Board of Regents policies and this resolution, that that is now a requirement. So as far as next steps is that we are continuing to collaborate with stakeholders. We've worked closely with academic staff and university staff, as well as the UC as we've moved forward with developing and revising these policies. And we think that we have a draft that's nearing completion. We've had about 14 meetings so far with the variety of stakeholders that share these policies and get responses and reactions to them. But we are moving towards a January 1 implementation date of these policies. The secondary areas that we're working to develop some processes to underpin these policies so that we have a process by which to provide these references to ensure the appropriate documents are getting into the personnel files at the appropriate times. So, thank you. >> I would just note that I have done a lot of reference checks, and I have been in a lot of job interviews myself, and I have never been asked whether I was, I had ever been found guilty of sexual assault or harassment, and I have never asked someone when I was doing a reference check whether the individual in question is guilty of either of those two things. I suspect the same is true of most of you. And with this change in policy, that should change. And many of you are doing in the midst of hiring, and it does mean that you need to make sure that the appropriate questions are asked of any candidate before you hire them. So, all right. We open, all four of us, for any questions or comments that you might have. >> Hi, Kurt Paulsen, District 76. The 2011 to 2013 biannual budget bill included a provision that changed Wisconsin law so that graduates of Wisconsin high schools whose parents lack legally documented immigration status would have to be treated as out of state for tuition purposes. Is it possible to ask the Chancellor in ongoing negotiations with a perhaps more receptive new administration to encourage a change of this policy back to the Wisconsin Dream Act of 2009? >> I would be delighted to see such a thing happen. It will, of course, require not just a government but both houses of the legislature to approve such an act. And you know, you can make your own decision as to how likely it is that that change would happen. But I certainly second your concern. >> [Inaudible] District 52. This is computer science still the largest major on campus. My comment is going to be a digression. It's not related to the discussions as is being going on but possibly a variable declaration. So today's December 3rd, 2018, when we meet now. And let me share with you some [inaudible] history to this date. The topic is the top honors that our nation gives to a scientist, medal of science prize colloquially known as the American Novel. And one of the disciplines which is covered in this competition is the combined discipline of computer science, mathematics and statistics and with approximately one recipient every year in the 55 years of the award. There were 65 recipients and two of them went to our campus. So the two, Steven Caleeny [phonetic] who's a former dean of the College of Letters and Science in the early 70s, he received it in 1990. He's a [inaudible] and he's best known, he was best known for his work on [inaudible] theory. And the second recipient came in 2003 to Carl [inaudible], a joint member of the computer science department here in the mathematics department here back then, and he received it for his seminal contribution to the development and the parties of approximation theory. Carl retired, and he lives on some remote island in the Pacific Ocean, in the Pacific Ocean. And he's also a member of the Nation on Academy of Science and the Nation on Academy of Engineers and the former recipient of our own [inaudible] Award. And all of us should know, but most of us probably may not know, that he was born in a small city in Germany called [inaudible] on December 3rd, 1937, and that closes the cycle. Because today's December 3rd, 2018, and approximately once in 70 years, we have the privilege to meet on the birthday of Carl [inaudible]. So, for us, as a senate, we divide his about 11 years old and not 81 as some others would count. And I wish to take this opportunity, hopefully on behalf of all of us, to wish him a happy birthday and to wish him this addition of wishing him happy birthday every seven years on the senate meeting that meets on that day would continue forward on his 12th anniversary we will have the same wishes to him. >> Thank you. And I'm sure the secretary of the faculty will make sure that is recorded in the minutes. Any other questions, comments, issues? In that case, if you all turn to page 11 of your agenda, are there any corrections or additions to the minutes of November 4th? If not, the minutes are approved as distributed, and I would now like to recognize dean of the graduate school, Bill Karpus, who's going to present the annual report for GFEC. Bill. >> Thank you, Chancellor Blank. So it's my privilege to report on the academic year 2017-18 graduate faculty executive committee or GFEC actions. The GFEC was fairly busy last year. We approved the creation of one doctoral minor. Eight named options, which were eight master's degree programs, one graduate certificate, two capstone certificates. We approved the renaming of one program, the restructuring of a named option, the admitting status of one program, one named option and one capstone certificate. And approved the suspension of one program and one named option and the discontinuation of two programs, two minors and three capstone certificates. And I should point out that these actions were also approved by executive committees of the various departments and the office of the deans of the schools and colleges in which they reside. The GFEC also conducted three-year check ins of one program, two named options and three capstones certificates. And although this is not a system or a university requirement, the GFEC voted a few years ago that when new programs were created, new graduate programs were created, they would like to see a three-year check in to make sure the progress is on track with the values of the institution and make sure that graduate students are being well served in those new programs. GFEC also conducted 24 program reviews, and I wanted to thank the Office of the Provost, especially Jocelyn Milner's group in APIR with whom we closely work on this and all of our other actions. We are caught up in our program reviews, and those program reviews result in a number of recommendations back to programs, which we follow up on because we conducted nine review updates last year as well where we ask the program to respond to our recommendations. And if the response is not adequate, we ask again or ask for representatives of the program to come to the GFEC meeting and explain how they're enacting recommendations made by GFEC. So the GFEC is not just a rubber stamping group for the program reviews. They actually are deeply engaged in graduate education and ensuring that our graduate programs are of the highest quality and moving forward with respect to national and University of Wisconsin Madison standards. I can take any questions that anyone has. >> Are there questions for Dean Karpus? Thank you. Let me call on Professor Irwin Goldman who's going to present the annual report for the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. Irwin. >> Thank you, Chancellor. I present the annual report for the year 2016-2017 and the academic year 2017-2018 for the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. CFRR dealt with three cases in the '16-'17 academic year and two cases in '17-'18 academic year. The CFRR deals with nonrenewal appeals that are described in FP&P 7.10. It serves as the hearing committee for appeals in disciplinary and dismissal cases that are described in FP&P chapter nine. And it is the hearing committee in cases of layoff due to financial emergency as described in FP&P chapter ten. Are there any questions? >> Questions? Thank you for the work of your committee. It's important work. I will now remind you, our next agenda item, last month you voted to postpone discussion on faculty document 2775 to today's meeting. That is the resolution of support for graduate assistance. So we now have tabled that for a month are back at that resolution. We will take it up where we left off then, which is that we had a motion and a second to approve the resolution, and we are in the midst of discussion. So I reopen the floor for discussion on that resolution. >> I'll defer to the UC. Go ahead. >> So, Rick Amasino, chair of the University Committee. I move that we postpone action on this resolution to the March 2019 faculty senate meeting. If there's a second to this motion, I'll speak to it. >> Do I hear a second to table the resolution further to the next March meeting? >> Second. >> All right. Do you want to speak to that? >> I believe that all of us are strongly in favor of supporting our graduate assistance, and we all recognize that fees of any sort presents a burden to graduate student employees whose salaries are low. The issue of segregated fees is complex because of the range of services these fees support and the variety of graduate assistance paying for them. For example, segregated fees include services such as daycare that are utilized more by graduate students than by undergraduates who also pay these fees and bus passes, which all employees pay for. The November resolution, which you have in this agenda, was designed to express our support for graduate assistance and to call on the shared governance budget committee to explore the various issues involved and provide recommendations as to how best to support our graduate students. This budget committee includes students, faculty, staff, as well as the vice-chancellor for finance and administration and the chief budget officer. And this committee also works directly in detail with the dean of the graduate school, the bursar's office and graduate students' groups as needed. The budget committee has already begun to explore this issue and plans to have a report to us in February. Thus, if we approve this motion to postpone discussion until the March 2019 faculty senate meeting, the senate can engage in a more informed discussion of how best to support our graduate students. >> So we have a motion and a second to postpone until March, awaiting a report from the budget committee. So now we are in discussion on that motion to postpone only, not on the larger resolution. >> Chad Alan Goldberg District 71. I am speaking against the motion to postpone. The reason being that some members of the senate would like to offer an amendment to the resolution that's on the agenda for today's meeting. The amendment, if passed, I think would allow the budget committee to continue its business but would also permit the faculty senate to make an important statement in the meantime. It wouldn't interfere with the business that the University Committee would like to promote. >> Is there other discussion of the proposal to postpone? >> Sorry, Kurt Paulsen, District 76. So we supported the resolution to postpone this last month to allow the TAA, many of whose leaders are here with us today, a chance to organize and go back to their departments and communicate. And I have the resolution that I hope to be able to, sorry, the amendment I would hope to be able to offer that would still allow the budget committee to work. And the resolution, I mean the amendment I would like to offer would express, I'm just going to speak to the motion to defer, would allow the faculty senate to state unequivocally our support for graduate students and covering of tuition, covering of the segregated fees. But without specifying any particular mechanism or way for the administration and the budget committee to arrive at that decision. So I think we, one plausible interpretation is that we should be ready to express support at a resolution level without dictating any particular implementation. >> So, we have a motion to postpone on the table. Is there anyone else who wants to peak to that, to postpone until March, when we would get input from the budget committee? >> Noah [inaudible] Feinstein, community environmental sociology, I oppose the motion to postpone for reasons already stated and one simply to echo the sentiments which have been shared that this is not, we're not making a policy, we're voting a resolution on principle of support. I think that if we do genuinely share that principle, but there is no good reason to delay that statement of support unless it constrains action, which it does not. >> Yeah, Rick. >> The reason that I'm making this motion on behalf of the university committee is that there are lots of ways to support graduate students. For example, if their stipends were to be increased to compensate for segregated fees, that would have the same effect. So, what we're proposing, again, is the budget committee to look into this so that we can, so that this body can understand all the ramifications of trying to support graduate students and not focus on one particular aspect of the overall salary considerations or take home pay considerations of those students. There are, again, when we, the university committee deliberated this, there were a lot of issues surrounding the segregated fees, some of which I've raised, that are complex and that we don't fully understand. That's why we were asking for further information on this before we could, again, decide how best to support our graduate students. >> I see no, someone else is coming to the mike. >> I'm Lisa Everett, physics. I just wanted to respond to this last comment. Maybe I'm not reading this correctly. I'm sure some of you have read this in much more detail than I have. But it seemed to me that the main statement here was just to encourage a budget committee to look into all these issues generally, not to say only consider waiving a fee and nothing more. So I don't understand why postponing it does anything materially different than what the resolution already says and what it does say to approve it now or to at least vote on it now is the opportunity for us to actually express our support overall for the bigger issue at hand, which is to relieve the financial burden on graduate students. >> I see no one else at the mike. If you are ready to vote on the motion of postponement. >> Alex [Inaudible]. I think that if we are just change -- >> Excuse me. Are you a senator? >> Yes. >> You are, okay. Yeah. >> If we just -- >> Please identify yourself. Sorry. >> Alex [Inaudible]. If we just change the payment to the graduate students as suggested, it will not deal with the issue of this fear. And we should, I think, very clearly separate the issue so the segregated fear and the total compensation that we are giving to the students. >> I'm not seeing anyone else coming to the microphone, so we will take a vote on a motion to postpone until March pending a report from the budget committee. All of those who would like to postpone should vote aye. All of those who want to move forward with the resolution should vote no. Everyone in favor of the resolution to postpone indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> All opposed. >> Nay. >> I'm going to argue that the nays have it, unless anyone wants to raise a question about that. So we're back on discussion of the resolution of support for graduate assistance. >> Kurt Paulsen, District 76. I'll say that not only am I a proud alumni of this institution, but when I was a graduate student, I was proud to be a member of the TAA. So it's really on their behalf that I'm going to introduce an amendment, which Steve should have up there. This is written with consultation with TAA and UFAC and Chad Goldberg. So our amendment would strike the last resolved clause and replace it with two. And this language is just slightly different than the handout you have from TAA. So t would replace it with the following two clauses. Be of further resolve that the UW Madison faculty senate joins the Teaching Assistant's Association in their call for the administration of UW Madison to fully cover mandatory fees for all graduate assistants at this university. And be it further resolved that the faculty senate calls on the administration of UW Madison to explore options for generating revenue such that this coverage does not adversely affect student services or place the burden on other students. So that second phrase takes a portion of the deleted resolved clause. So that's my motion. >> Is there a second to that motion? >> Second. >> In that case, do you want to speak to it first? >> So speaking to the motion, I think the point of this motion is not to say that, because the current UC motion suggests that the faculty is fully committed to investigating the possibility of covering the fees. We use covering the fees rather than remitting or increasing compensation because it's not specific to the mode of these fees being covered. I realize there's complicated legal and tax issues. And this would be a strong statement of support from the faculty that we support this idea that we should support our graduate students by fully covering the mandatory fees. And it's unspecific as to the implementation and the source of the revenue. Now, I am an economist too, so I know that there's no magic part of money that would come up with the revenue, but I think it's important that we show this sign of support. And again, we have many of the TAA members here, and I'd like to as the permission of the senate to have at least one of the co-presidents speak briefly on their, so do I need a motion on that, or is it just a point of privilege? >> I think you have to ask consent, and we need to take a quick vote on that. Right? Or not. Oh, just ask -- >> I would as unanimous consent we allow Chance co-president of the TAA to address the senate. >> Are there any objections to that? >> Yes. >> All right. [ Inaudible ] >> No. As unanimous. >> Okay, now we take a vote. But do we have a discussion of this, or do we just go immediately into a vote? I would think at least, no discussion. I think the objection could at least indicate why he's objecting. >> Yes. >> But you need to go to a mike to do that. And then we'll go immediately to a vote. Yeah, at the mike. Indicate why you're objecting, and then we take a vote immediately after that. >> You know, we have had several occasion where members of us invited the members of the teaching assistant group to speak in front of us. And I was present in some of these occasions. And unfortunately, in each of these occasions, I realize that those invited members did not speak at the level of, how should I say, that the senate is expecting of them, and sometimes, they did not speak to the motion or to the amendment in place. And I felt back then that it has not been as productive as it used to be and as our own discussion as senators are usually. And I felt disappointed. And this is my show of disappointment that I'm sharing with you today saying that I should raise this objection so that the people who invite those give the people who speak after being invited, give them advanced tutoring and advanced guidance how proceedings in this senate should go and how they should adhere themselves to the standard that we expect each one of us. Thank you. >> We have a request for a consent to allow one of the TAA members to speak. We have an objection to that. We will take a vote on whether we allow that individual to speak or not. All in favor of allowing him to speak indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> All those opposed. >> Nay. >> The motion for consent passes, and I would invite whoever is going to speak forward. Please identify yourself as you come to the mike. >> Hi, I'm Chance McMann. I am co-president of the Teaching Assistant's Association. And I'm a PhD student in comparative literature and folklore studies. I'd like to thank you for your time to allow me to speak. I appreciate the clauses of the former resolution that encourages support for graduate assistants and recommends continued expansion. But I urge you, as faculty senate, to vote in favor of the amendment that Kurt Paulsen proposed. Many graduate workers pay around $1,200 a year to work as employees at UW. And if they're an international student, that cost goes up to $1,400 a year. Having spoken to some faculty senators about these costs has elicited shock that graduate workers pay so much money as a requisite to work at this university. As a teaching assistant who has worked on this campus for six years, I've heard numerous stories of graduate workers struggling to make ends meet. For many students, this means struggling to pay rent, buying groceries or impacting the food choices we are able to make such as healthy food can be more expensive, paying medical bills, and graduate workers often struggling to support to families. The burden becomes even greater when considering professional activities such as attending conferences. Sometimes, it also means taking extra jobs to make ends meet, which impacts our education and our wellness broadly construed. The financial impacts of mandatory fees are compounded even more when considering that there are many graduate workers who lack financial security, such as parents or family able to help support graduate workers. And I am among those in this category. In short, as well, mandatory fees disproportionately impact minoritized graduate workers here on campus who may not be able to have the financial support and aid of their family. Our mandatory fees are significantly higher than those at many of our peer institutions. Graduate workers at universities like Michigan State, Penn State and UC Berkley pay no mandatory fees. Faculty across campus have noted that UW Madison's fees make it more difficult to recruit and retain excellent graduate students. I understand the concerns about the budgetary impacts of coverage for mandatory fees, but given that this makes up .21% of the annual budget, I fear framing mandatory fees under austerity rhetoric forecloses that budgets are first and foremost decided upon. They don't just come down from heaven. That is why I urge you today to vote in favor of standing with the Teaching Assistant's Association in its call for the university to cover mandatory fees without pushing this burden onto undergraduates. Thank you very much. >> We are now open for further discussion on this amendment, on the proposed amendment only. >> Chad Alan Goldberg District 71. I'm speaking in favor of the proposed amendment, and I would like to commend Mr. McMann, TAA co-president, who spoke, I think, in a way and at a level that was certainly appropriate for the faculty senate, very eloquently. [ Applause ] So I support this amendment for the following reasons. The resolution in its current form merely calls into budget committee to explore options by April 2019. In this form the faculty senate would avoid taking a stand on the issue of covering mandatory fees. In this way, the current language vitiates the resolved clause in the original version of this resolution, which was on the agenda last semester. Therefore, the opposed amendment is preferable to the existing language because it places the faculty senate on record with the TAA and associated students of Madison in favor of covering mandatory fees. The proposed amendment stipulates a desired end, mandatory fee coverage, without wading into the complex issue of means. It does not specify how this coverage is to be accomplished, nor does it set a specific timeframe. So as my colleague Senator Paulsen emphasized, it doesn't interfere with the work of the budget committee in any way. I would also like to point out that the proposed amendment has the support, of course, of the TAA, also of united faculty and academic staff, American Federation of Teachers' Local 223. And lastly, I would like to remind the senate of something. When the faculty senate passed its resolution calling for fair and equitable pay for faculty assistance in April 2017, at that time, I asked my fellow senators, please ask yourself what kind of university you want to work in, whether it's a winner take all campus or a campus where concerns about fairness, justice and solidarity still play a role in the work that we all do together. And I believe if the answer is the latter, then it's important for us to show our support and solidarity for graduate assistants who are colleagues in training. >> Anyone else want to speak to the amendment? >> Just a small amendment to this. The proper term would be segregated fees. May we change the, in the first edition, be it further resolved, UW Madison to fully cover segregated fees, which is the proper term? >> So, a friendly agreement? >> A friendly amendment. >> So is the person who made the amendment willing to accept that? >> It's hard for me to negotiate on behalf of TAA. I think, yes, are there mandatory fees that we're talking about that are not segregated fees? >> The official term for these is segregated fees. >> Oh, so I guess there's a difference with international students who pay both segregated fees and mandatory fees? Is that correct? >> I don't know if these fees, I don't know if there's anyone here, the additional graduate student fees for processing graduate students are considered segregated fees or not. I don't know the answer to that. Does anyone here know the answer? Clearly not. Yeah. Yes. >> There are lots of mandatory fees. These aren't defined. There are lab fees. There are library fees. There are all sorts of fees. Mandatory fees isn't specific terms. Segregated fees is. I'm not familiar with the details of a particular fee required of a foreign student, but the, you know, it's not in the same category as the segregated fees. >> I think we're okay with segregated instead of mandatory. >> Take that [inaudible] we will say segregated rather than mandatory. >> We were using a more generic term, but yeah. >> Yeah. Are there other people who want to speak to the amendment only? >> Eric Sandrin [phonetic], District 113. If you could scroll up to one of the first whereas there, if that's possible. I'd like to read that. So it's the third one there. Whereas the faculty depend on the contributions of graduate assistants to fulfill effectively our own professional responsibilities. So recently we had a presentation here about how the university is making efforts to reduce administrative burden on faculty and on others. And I would argue that this is one means that we can, that we, by which we most effectively manage the burden on faculty. And for that reason, I believe that this expense is far recovered in making the lives of many of the rest of us easier, as well as providing a service to the students and rewarding the people who do provide that service. So from that perspective, I would speak in favor of this amendment. >> Is there anyone else who wants to speak to the amendment? >> Paul Hobin [phonetic]. I don't know my district, but I'm at the business school. Twenty-four I'm told. I do have some misgivings about this, the fact that the amendment takes it away from the budget committee it looks like in that the amendment in no way mentions the budget committee anymore. And the fact that it presupposes that this is the best way to go about this. So previously, the amendment, or the previous language appears to say we should explore this option, and this basically writes it in gold that we should cover these fees. And that's the best way to go about helping our graduate students be better funded, be better to provide in their roles and to better recruit them. I think the previous language leaves it open to the committee, who clearly has told us there's a lot of things that are deeply intertwined here and how we compensate graduate students. And that we're taking it out of their hands and sort of presupposing unlimited information to the extent that about three minutes ago it sounded like we didn't even know what fees we were talking about for a second. So, I guess that being said, I'm concerned about taking this strong of a stand with what is obviously limited information and what is obviously some confusion about what it is that we're taking a stand on. >> Yes. >> Matthew Roland [phonetic] District 27. I don't read this as taking power away from the budget committee. It does specifically call on the administration, which includes the budget committee and allows for. And I also do not read it, personally, this language as shutting down other options but rather reflecting that the TAA and the students would like to see the segregated fees covered as a part of that. >> Is there any other discussion on the amendment? If you are ready to vote on the proposed amendment which replaces the last two paragraphs of the resolution with what is you see is up here, all of those in favor of the amendment indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> All of those opposed. >> Nay. >> The ayes have it. We're now looking at the amended resolution. Is there any further discussion on the amended resolution? If you're ready to vote, all of those in favor of the amended resolution indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? >> Nay. >> The ayes have it. The resolution carries. We move to the next item. I'm sorry, I've got to speak to this. And I will get in trouble for saying this. I find it shocking that this place is going to vote this amendment without a single person asking, what does this cost? What in the world are we talking about in dollars? I just find that irresponsible, and I will not pass by without making that comment. Resolution to approve candidate eligibility for transitioning to UW extension faculty. Rick, you're on. >> I move adoption of faculty document 2787 which is a simple housekeeping step needed to make UW extension faculty eligible to be nominated for and appointed to faculty committee seats as of July 1st, 2019. On that date, the extension faculty, as you know, will become members of the UW Madison faculty, but before that date, indeed already in progress this semester, there are slates for spring elections and other nominating procedures underway. Your passage of this resolution will enable the various committees that put together these slates and nominate faculty for committees to consider UW extension faculty now for seats they would occupy after July 1st. >> I do not need a second on this since it comes from the UC. Is there discussion on this resolution? I think this is housekeeping. All those in favor of the resolution indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? That passes. Our last item of business is a resolution on UW system policy draft 102 on section program productivity monitoring. Rick, do you want to present this? >> Yes. I move adoption of faculty document 2788 which is a statement that will serve as the UW Madison faculty response to a new policy under discussion at the Board of Regents. You may have seen coverage of this topic in recent months in both local and the national press, including locally this morning. Some of that coverage has not made a clear distinction between UW Madison and other UW system campuses and has not accurately taken into account how this policy is evolved, and in particular, how it will likely affect our campus. The document you have before you is intended to respond to the new draft policy from the perspective of our campus, while at the same time, standing with our colleagues at other system institutions. The fact is that UW Madison already has a robust and timely system of review that is run by shared governance and led by faculty. There are elements of the draft system policy that would actually interrupt and slow down our existing practice. Thus, the bottom line recommendation in this resolution is that the draft be modified with the recommendations for changes indicated. Finally, I call your attention to the supplementary materials included in your packets with this resolution. These include the existing UW system policy, the draft revisions to that policy and our own campuses administrations' comments on the policy. Vice Provost Jocelyn Milner from the Office of Academic Planning and Institutional Review is here today if you have any questions about those comments or how we review programs on the campus already. >> Again, this resolution does not need a second because it comes from the UC. Is there discussion of this resolution? >> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. It is nice to find myself in strong agreement with my distinguished colleagues on the University Committee. I would like to speak in favor of this motion. I support this motion for the following reasons. Faculty at the local level, not system administration, are best qualified to make curricular decisions at UW Madison, including decisions about program closures. Those decisions should be based exclusively on educational considerations and made through established shared governance processes. It is especially egregious that the proposed system policy empowers system administration to make the final determination on any appeals of program discontinuance. Simply put, the proposed UW system productivity policy is an attack on shared governance, and it is not the first such attack. When Governor Scott Walker, the man who has appointed most of the current Regents, tried to change the university's historic mission in 2015 by replacing its commitment to search for truth and improve the human condition with the far narrower goal of meeting the state's workforce needs, a public outcry forced him to back down. But he didn't give up. He pursued the same end by different means, deep budget cuts, the weakening of tenure and the curtailment of faculty's voice and academic and educational activities which concentrated power in the hands of administrators. These attacks motivated the UW Madison faculty senate to vote no confidence and UW system president Ray Cross and the Board of Regents in May 2016. But they didn't get the message. When it was reported in February 2018 that system president Ray Cross disparaged and intentionally circumvented shared governance in his haste to restructure the UW system, the UW Madison faculty senate again called on him to reaffirm his commitment to shared governance. He didn't get the message. Last month, the citizens of Wisconsin elected a new governor, one who has made public education a priority and has said he couldn't wait to replace the Regents who approved program closures at UW Stevens Point. But Cross and Board of Regents still haven't got the message. The draft system policy and program productivity is the latest in a long series of attacks on shared governance. Sadly, the faculty must educate system administration and the Regents once again about the value and importance of shared governance. Faculty are like everyone else. We do our best work when we come to identify with the institution we work for and feel that we're contributing to something that we genuinely believe in. And the most effective way to foster those attitudes is to give people a voice in their workplace and a share in the institution's power. It's high time Ray Cross and the Regents learn this lesson. I therefore urge you to vote yes on this motion. >> Others? Other comments on this resolution? If you are ready to vote. All those in favor of the resolution on UW system draft policy 102 indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Are there any opposed? That resolution carries. And it will be transmitted. That is the end of the agenda so far as I have it, and we will see you all in February, whatever the first Monday of February is. Thank you.