>> I am told we have a quorum so I'm going to call the meeting to order. And if I can ask everyone to rise as you are able for the reading of the Memorial Resolutions. Let me start by recognizing Professor Alan Carroll to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Robert Dott.

>> Robert H. Dott died February 2018, a month after the passing of his wife and lifelong intellectual partner Nancy. Bob joined UW in 1958 and become one of the best known and most widely respected figures in the field of sedimentary geology. He is best known for his work on sedimentation and plate tectonics and on the origin of quartz sandstone found across much of the Midwest. He also developed a parallel career in the history of science. He co-authored one of the most successful textbooks in the geosciences and also cowrote the popular "Roadside Geology of Wisconsin." He mentored five dozen graduate students over the course of his career and received numerous accolades including Fellow of the Wisconsin Academy of Arts, Sciences and Letters. He retired in 1994 but continued to be very active throughout his emeritus years setting a memorable example for the generations following him.

>> Thank you and we are honored to have Professor Dott's son Eric and his grandson Collin [assumed spelling] here. Thank you for coming.

[ Applause ]

Let me recognize Professor Randy Shaver to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Terry Howard.

>> Professor Emeritus William Terry Howard passed as well as on February 26, 2017 at age 80. Terry's 30-year career in the Dairy Science Department began in 1966 and continued until his retirement in 1995. His primary responsibility was extensive education for dairy cattle nutrition as part of UW Cooperative Extension. He served Wisconsin dairy producers, county extension educators and feed industry specialists with his expertise. International outreach took him to 17 countries and Terry received prestigious honors from several Wisconsin and national organizations. He provided many years of service and leadership in the Madison community and to the dairy industry. Terry is survived by his wife Karen, three children and five grandchildren.

>> Thank you. And this afternoon we're honored to have his wife Karen with us as well as his daughter Rachel Howard and grandson Tavon Howard. Thank you for coming.

[ Applause ]

Let me recognize Professor David Eide to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emerita Susan Nitzke.

>> Good afternoon. Our friend and colleague Professor Emerita Susan Nitzke died at the age of 71 on August 20, 2018. Susan was a valued member of the Department of Nutritional Sciences and also of UW Extension. Born and raised in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin idea was the heart and soul of Susan's career here at UW. With her characteristic wit, warmth, and enthusiasm, she was dedicated to improving nutrition and nutrition education. Through her research and enhancing community interventions and her many Extension and Outreach activities, Susan improved the lives of people across the state. She was also a strong leader in our department culminating services department chair from 2008 to 2011. Thank you.

>> Thank you and I'm pleased that we have Professor Nitzke's husband Bill and son Andrew and a number of their friends. Thank you all for coming.

[ Applause ]

I will recognize Professor Valentin Picasso to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Johnny Pendleton.

>> Johnny Pendleton, Professor Emeritus of the Department of Agronomy, died on May 15, 2018. Upon obtaining his PhD in agronomy, he joined the University of Illinois and developed practices that increased yields of corn and soy beans in the US and internationally. In 1971, he became Chair of the Department of Agronomy at the University of Wisconsin. He oversaw research and served administration at the IRRI, the International Research Center on Rice, and consulted on many USAD and FAO projects in Asia and Africa. Dr. Pendleton's life mission was to feed the world and his contribution to that effort were recognized by numerous awards and honors.

>> Thank you. Let me recognize Professor Ken Albrecht to present the Memorial Resolutions first for Professor Emeritus Dwayne Rohweder and then Professor Emeritus Richard Smith.

>> Dwayne Rohweder, Professor Emeritus of Agronomy, died on December 8, 2017 at the age of 91. Professor Rohweder was internationally recognized and respected as an expert on the management and utilization of forage crops, especially alfalfa, as feed for livestock. He was remarkably effective in his role as an extension agronomist cultivating close relationships with farmers, agribusiness, and research colleagues to ensure that relevant new technologies were understood and employed on Wisconsin farms to improve profitability and environmental stewardship. Dwayne was a giant presence in Wisconsin agriculture community and he'll be missed by all who knew him. Richard Smith, Professor Emeritus of agronomy, died on June 2, 2018 at the age of 82. Nationally and internationally, his name was synonymous with red clover genetics and breeding. Professor Smith was instrumental in all aspects of Trifolium germplasm collection, evaluation and enhancement. He was a dedicated mentor to numerous graduate students as we'll as to junior faculty. He was a talented statistician teaching biometry and experimental design courses and serving as a resource for students and colleagues. Dick was also famous for his humor and for his joy in telling a good story.

>> And I'm very pleased that Professor Smith's children, his three daughters Barb, Kathy and Diane, as well as his son Rich are here, and I understand that his wife Shirley is on the phone on FaceTime. Thank you all for coming.

[ Applause ]

You may all be seated. We have a full agenda today and I have just a few quick updates that I want to tell you about. To start with, the budget, always a topic of interest in the spring, as you're probably aware, Governor Evers 2019 to '21 biennial budget proposal was released publicly last Thursday. And although these proposals are important, I want to emphasize they are simply the first step is a very long process that's likely to carry into the summer and potentially even beyond. Let's hope not. But there are many positive things in that budget that I want to make sure you are aware of. As some of you heard me say last week, I applaud the new investments for the UW system and I appreciate the governor's strong commitment for giving us the tools that are needed to continue providing a high-quality affordable education for Wisconsin students. For the system as a whole, the budget asks for $150 million in new funding. It's a substantial increase over any other recent year. This includes money to increase access to classes in high demand fields here at UW Madison such as business, engineering, computer science, and nursing, and money to fund a proposed 2% pay increase in each of the next two years. The in-state undergraduate tuition freeze is proposed to continue which would then leave it in place for eight years. And I will say that I believe we need to have a serious conversation about how long such a freeze is sustainable. But the governor's proposal does provide state dollars to replace at least the inflationary level of funds had we increased tuition by inflation. So that's a good thing. There is also a substantial increase in need-based grants for in-state lower income students and that also is something that is much needed. The capital budget is not yet out. It wasn't when last I talked to someone. I think it was supposed to be out late this afternoon. So watch the papers as to what's happening on the capital front that is equally important for us and we've got some big projects there that need to move forward, most notably the veterinary medical school project. Deferred maintenance I might notice also a big problem and more money to solve some of our on-campus maintenance problems would be good. We have not had the funds to do some of the basic preventative maintenance on buildings that are required. we actually spend below [inaudible] average for operations and maintenance that reflects some of the cuts and lack of new investment spending of the last decade or so. In fact, we had one 2015 to 2017 budget, a biennium ago, that had no money at all for projects, repairs and maintenance. The head of our Facilities and Planning Group, David Darley [assumed spelling] spoke at the Board of Regents meeting in February and noted that according to a study that we had done by the group that does a lot of these studies for universities, our deferred maintenance backlog right now is $1.5 billion. Many of you live in buildings and see that every day. And this is something we simply have to figure out how we address and we need to address that in partnership with the state. In part, we're working on trying to get more flexibility and control over our capital renovation processes but I highlight the capital budget because to my mind that is as important as the dollar budget over here that's for programs. As we continue this process, I want to express gratitude to both Governor Evers and Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes. They've had a very high level of engagement with campus. As you may know, Governor Evers actually toured the vet med school. We're expecting him and the Lieutenant Governor back on campus tomorrow morning. He was asked to come to the Wisconsin Institute of Discovery Building and do a lab tour at the WID after which time he'll do a press clutch and answer questions with the press and emphasize some of his higher education budget issues and I'm delighted that the Governor feels that the best place for him to talk about his higher education budget is in some of our really high end and great research labs. As I noted, this budget has a long way to go. The Joint Finance Committee gets this bill next and it will then pass on to the legislation depending on what they recommend, the legislature and then it will go back to the Governor for his signature. As you probably know, there are a number of legislative leaders who suggested that they are going to start from scratch on their own budget and not use the Governor's budget as the starting point. So as a result, to be honest, it's just really unclear how the debate on funding higher education or any other issues in the budget is going to proceed this year. So check our budget.wisc.edu webpage if you want updates or read your local paper. Two brief updates on our senior level searches. The third and final candidate for the vice chancellor for research in graduate education is going to be on campus tomorrow. I hope all of you are able to attend this presentation as we'll as some of the earlier ones and would ask that you send you feedback in promptly on all three candidates so we have it by the end of Thursday. The search committee for the provost search recently completed a series of listening sessions. I hope you or others from your department were able to attend and that search is on track at this point to produce candidates to come to campus the last week of April or the first week of May. So lots of things happening on the search front and I know a lot of you were doing searches too. Finally, let me close with two pieces of good news. First, I want to note that the National Science Foundation has just come out with its listing showing the number of PhDs granted by school. We'll be doing a press release on this one tomorrow but this past year, UW was number one as a source of PhDs in this country awarding 844 PhDs. And there's a substantial gap between us and the next school. Following behind us is UC Berkeley with 799 PhDs awarded and then comes the University of Texas, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana and the University of Michigan. So we're clearly above all of those people.

[ Applause ]

It is a real mark of the size and the scope of this campus that we're number one on that list and good to know that we are populating the future ranks of researchers really around the globe with our students. So thanks to all of you in your departments for all of you who work on that. Second piece of good news is the lead in to our next speaker. I suspect many of you know about our Pipeline Program, the PEOPLE Program, designed to take high school students who might be at risk of not coming to college but who really have the ability to go to college and prepare them and motivate them to be ready for school when they graduate from high school to go on to college. We've been running this program for two decades primarily inside Madison and in Milwaukee. We did a major evaluation of the program a couple of years ago and have made some tweaks and changes to make it more effective. As a result of that, last week we held a grand opening on Wednesday at a new location in Milwaukee, the Rufus King Middle School, which is where that program is going to be headquartered in the Milwaukee public school district that allows us to do tutoring and programming at the school to recruit from among middle school students. And at that event, we introduce the people Milwaukee staff and helped announce how you apply and get into this program. It was a great event. We've had great cooperation from Milwaukee School District and we're doing equally good things in Madison. So I'm really pleased with this revised program and the space that is available to it. It really is the Wisconsin idea in action. And to continue on that topic, set of topics, I'm going to now introduce Patrick Sims who is our Chief Diversity Office, a professor in the theatre department and also Deputy Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion to talk about some of the initiatives that he is working on. Patrick.

>> Thank you, chancellor. Good afternoon, everyone. Alright, I won't take that as a lackluster commitment. Every year I get the opportunity to hang out with you all and provide an update on the state of Diversity and Inclusion on our campus. What I'm about to walk you through is a series of slides that are very high level overview of our respective efforts, some of which are directly managed by my office, a good portion of which, however, are a result of partnerships in and across campus with faculty, with the deans, schools and colleges and other large administrative units, Quickly, I'll move you -- Let's see if this -- Here we go. I want to start by first acknowledging that this is the year that the HLC accreditation process is coming to fruition for us. So I want to give a special shout out to Jocelyn Milner, Eden Inoway-Ronnie, Steve Cramer, Mo Bischof, Laurie Leininger. What is interesting about this and why I'm giving them some extra attention here, there's always a portion that talks about the institution's commitment to diversity inclusion. And once the document becomes publicly available, I believe March 25th and 26th is when the reviewers will be on campus, you'll see a series of efforts that are documented that are really impressive. For all of our challenges and opportunity areas related to diversity inclusion, there are some things that we've been able to do right over the last five to seven years and I'm pleased to say that not only have I been a part of that but, again, this has been a result of partnerships across campuses, so we want to highlight that success. Additionally, there are a number of partnerships that are always at the fore of which the equity and diversity chairs of every school, college and large administrative unit. They play a key role in some of the activities that my office is focusing on. This year, they're giving special attention to trying to build professional development opportunities for academic staff and university staff. We may be familiar with the ALP program, the Academic Leadership Program, or the Provost Fellows Program, I've asked this body to think about how they could have professional development opportunities for academic staff and university staff. So they have a series of recommendations that we'll be entertaining and sharing forth in the future. Likewise, the CDCC, the Campus Diversity and Climate Committee, is a key partner of ours along with the MDC, the Minority and Disadvantaged Coordinators. There are five separate governance groups on campus that deal with diversity, equity and inclusion as it relates to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, et cetera. These are key allies of ours in the larger discussion about how do we create a place that is welcoming and inclusive for everyone. It sounds hyperbolic in some sense but the reality is that takes everyone involved in that conversation playing their role in helping evolve the discussion and support. This year is the 50th anniversary of the Black student strike. I won't spend too much time on this but I just wanted to again highlight the support from University Communications, The Black Voice, which is a student [inaudible] on campus that has been revived as a result of this process and, of course, my colleagues in the Vice-Chancellor of Student Affairs Office and Division of Student Life. Amazing work that's been happening. We have the students who were here that were actively protesting during their time on campus of which we have the creation of the Afro-American Studies Department and the Multicultural Center on campus, Multicultural Student Center. That was a hard-fought battle but if you want to learn more about it, there's URL https news.wisc.edu black-student-strike. Please take a look at it. It is really impressive what the students and our college and university communications have put together for us. The chancellor mentioned major milestone for us, the people in Milwaukee opening a very festive event. One of the things that we're doing, as she mentioned, we're funneling our resources, being clear about our outcomes, what we're expecting. We're supporting up to 100 students in the city of Milwaukee and 100 students here in Madison. So we bring in a cohort of about 200 students each year really preparing them using admission to UW Madison as a threshold for their academic success. We know Madison may not be the best fit for everyone. Some students may not want the large college experience. But we do know if they can get admitted here, they can get admitted just about anywhere. So we're excited about that opening. I want to say a little bit about the IMUW [phonetic]. This is an effort that's in partnership again with our colleagues in University Communications. This, I should note, was a direct outgrowth of the recommendations from our campus climate survey. One of those recommendations was trying to find a way to engage all of our campus stakeholders, especially our students, to have an identity that they identify with before we thought about ourselves in the lens of or through the lens of our race, our gender and our ethnicity. IMUW was one way that we thought this could be a unifying messaging strategy where folks could say what their hobbies are, what their commitments are as a way of engaging dialogue with their peers. So there's more to come here but we want to make sure students own the process, so we don't want to get ahead of the students but we're really excited about what's possible in our students sharing their voices in this way. You may have heard about the Targets of Opportunity Program. I won't say much here. Again, there's a ton of information available. I will simply note that there are 65 proposals that have been submitted thus far. Thirty-nine have been authorized. We're still in the process of learning what our department chairs, how they're yielding those offer but we feel very good about the process that we've built and we're clear we're in partnership and collaboration with all of the players with every step of the way. So when we think about the chairs, the departments, the deans, it's a process that has buy-in and we feel very strongly that this will yield positive results for us coming next academic year. Our multicultural homecoming, this is an area that we've been playing in for a number of years, at least for the last five to six, and it's interesting when you try to engage alum of color. There's often a mixed experience. They have great affinity for the programs and somewhat mixed feelings about the institution overall but we're pleased to say that 78% said they made professional networking connections as a result of this experience and 84% said that they were extremely like to attend future homecoming events. This is exactly the space that we want to be in when it comes to engaging our alum of color to thinking about their experience as a positive one rather than one that was somewhat mixed. Diversity forum 2018, just a quick highlight. Dr. Talithia Williams, she was our keynote, really amazing scholar. We had great turnout, record turnout. We had over 1200 people register for the forum. We usually have what we call a flake rate, not everybody shows up that signs up but I'm pleased to say that our flake rate was less than 15%. So we had people showing up and engaging in what I thought were very positive discussions. Similarly, we had a late-night diversity forum keeping that commitment to our second and third shift employees. They also had great discussion opportunities talking about areas, resources that they're looking for. Chief Kristin Roman was the keynote for that event and again a very robust discussion. Pleased to announce, our keynote for Diversity Forum 2019, John Quinones. How many of you have ever watched the show "What Would You Do?" So they won't film anything here on campus but we're excited to have John share some of his insights as a journalist that particularly looks at issues affected by diversity, equity, inclusion. So we're really excited about him spending time with us. One of the things I often try to put to this body and other faculty is as we solidify the roster of workshops and presentations to the extent you can, if there are ways to make connections to your classroom or your curricular experience, bring your classes, bring your students. We really want this to be a resource for everyone to see themselves engaged in, in the future. Our Innovation Grant Funding system, how many of you know that we have an Innovative Grant Funding System where we give up to about $5000 to support projects that are sort of venture capital in nature, they're startups? Not many hands went up but I will say, please take a look at this. This is a resource that we make available to all of our campus partners. Again, it's up to $5000, so we encourage you to participate and if you want to learn more about it, just visit diversity.wisc.edu resources innovation grant. Outstanding women of color, we will be recognizing these five amazing women tomorrow. I just want to give them a shout out to Bianca Baldridge, Mariela Quesada Centeno, Jennifer Edgoose, Cherene Sherrard-Johnson and Melissa Metoxen, five amazing community members that you'll learn more about if you are able to come hang out with us. The event will be held at the Pyle Center tomorrow at 5 PM. Please come out and support these great scholars and collaborators on our campus. I'm moving quickly here. So it's a lot but the Mercile J. Lee Scholars Program, how many of you know or are familiar with the Chancellor's Scholars and Powers-Knapp Program? Well those programs still are continuing for us but we found a way to collectively support these efforts by creating and recognizing the founder of those programs, Dr. Mercile J. Lee. We had a wonderful event for her this past November to acknowledge her contribution and to our knowledge, this is the only program of its kind, it's named after an African-American woman here at the university. So we're really excited to recognize her contribution and support for these programs in this way. Our Dean's Diversity Retreat, we have engaged, this was our second Deans Diversity Retreat last week. You can see here there are a few of the retreat goals. Again, I won't spend too much time here. You can see the PowerPoint PDF that we made available for you. But I'll highlight a few key takeaways. There was a really robust discussion and a strong desire to offer more support for LGBTQ plus community members on campus. Really matching the action with the rhetoric. Really strong support for the Top Program which you heard me speak about and a great discussion about providing adequate support for faculty who teach difficult and/or controversial content. So we're excited about those discussions. There are a number of follow-up action items that I'm asking the deans to commit to and/or engage in and again collaboration with my office. Some of you may recall that in the spring of 2016, there was a resolution on cultural competency. Again, I won't read this to you but I would ask folks to think about this as we move into the tail-end of this academic year and in preparation for fall '19. What does this mean? It was a set of individuals who populated this space but there are likely new faces in here. So it's worth reiterating as we think about our ongoing commitment to support all walks of life, all communities on our campus. Our Diversity Liaison Program, which I'm going to pause for a second and ask them to come forward, this is our inaugural cohort. I will let them sort of say a little bit about their bios and backgrounds but I just want to highlight that we have a call available. That call is going to close March 15th. We'll be taking our second cohort for the Diversity Liaison Program. And some of the things that they've done, Dr. Naomi Chesler wrote a fantastic How-To Guide for Promoting Diversity Inclusion in Biomedical Engineering. We have facilitators, some of the lead facilitators for Madison, Wisconsin Institutes for Healing Racism. There's wonderful literature and a great bibliography that Dr. Eldridge built for us we're excited about. And then of course we think about what diversity looks like, not just in terms of race, ethnicity, but it really being something that embeds and infuses the fabric of our organization. This is a photo of one of the liaison's laboratory of the students that are there and as again you take a look at the document under better lighting, you can see that it's a very diverse group. And so we're really excited about the work that the team is going to do. And with that, I'm going to ask them to step up and finish out the next ten minutes here. We'll take joint questions should you have any joint questions. They'll talk you through their program, what they've been focusing on for the last six or seven months, I think. So I'll give this to you.

>> Good afternoon, everyone. It's actually good to be here and not there. So thank you so much, Patrick, for the introduction. My name is Ruth Litovsky. I'm a professor in Communication Sciences and Disorders and in the Department of Surgery. And I'm here with my co-diversity liaison project faculty who will also introduce themselves in a minute. So it's an honor and a pleasure to work alongside with Patrick and his team and with my colleagues on this project. And I want to thank our colleagues on the University Committee for opening up their committee and listening to our thoughts and giving us feedback about the work that we're doing and allowing some time to share these thoughts with the faculty senate. We'll tell you about some of the work that we're doing and encourage faculty to join us and invite you to apply for the next cohort of the DLP. So we're working to advance the University of Wisconsin's mission to not only improve and enhance our efforts in diversity and inclusive excellence but we're working to shift the paradigm and change the way that we think about our responsibility and to work on changing how we engage with our students in the classroom, how we recruit, retain and support our students, staff and faculty of color. Now I'll take a moment to provide a context and a background for the Diversity Liaison Project. It was motivated by the fact that many faculty are so interested in lifting the work that they do in the space of diversity but so busy with their jobs and actually not so sure sometimes how and where to look for resources. So the DLP emerged as one of the goals or action items to be implemented in the UW Madison's new plan for diversity. So as many of you know but as Patrick also said, there are many new faces here. In 2014, UW Madison put out the framework, the new framework for diversity. It's a living document which has gone through changes as we move through new initiatives and thinking about how to engage folks on campus and also work with our community. And so one of the most wonderful things I think about that document is that the way that we framed and defined diversity is "In terms of race and ethnicity, sex, gender, gender identity or expression, marital status, age, sexual orientation, country of origin, language disability, socioeconomic status, and affiliations that are based on cultural, political, religious or other identities." So the goal is to really enhance faculty involvement and commitment to inclusive excellence. This is the goal of the DLP. As Patrick mentioned, a call was released in 2018 for the first class for the first four DLPs who are standing in front of you here today and we plan to add at least a couple more cohorts so that there'll be a group of us that iterate through three years at a time. So today, our goal is to A) introduce the DLP to the faculty senate, to emphasize the call for the new DLP to report on progress and to share and introduce some resources that we have started to put together. And so Naomi Chesler, my colleague, will speak now and you can [inaudible].

>> So I'm Naomi Chesler. I'm faculty in biomedical engineering and I'm one of the other DLPs and we can just introduce ourselves and then I will come back.

>> I'm Hannah Eldridge. I'm the Department of German, Nordic and Slavic.

>> And I'm David Crook. I'm a historical musicologist with an appointment in the School of Music. I've been here since the fall of 1990.

>> Okay, so that's, you know, our names and our departments and there's other aspects of our identities that are probably obvious to you right now, for example we're all white. And I think that's worth noting given our role as diversity liaisons. So what that means is that we do not have lived experiences as people of color in this country, on this campus, and this city. And so we are not going around to departments, classrooms, et cetera and speaking about the experiences of people of color because we have not lived those experiences. What we are doing is trying to create resources for people of any identity and I haven't given you a laundry list of our identities. Some of them may be visible and some may not be visible. And encouraging all faculty to use the privilege of their position and possibly the privilege of their identity to have discussions about identity on campus either with their students or with their colleagues and to explore their identities which actually do influence so many interactions that we have with other people whether we acknowledge it or not. So, let's see. Can we -- Right. So we are here also as faculty members and we are here to speak to faculty members, provide resources for faculty members. Hannah will talk a little bit about one of the resources that she's put together but we feel like there's a special power and privilege in being a faculty member to take action on this campus on diversity and that's really what we are here to do and what the next cohort will be here to do. Administrators have other roles. Staff have other roles. Students, you know, do what they do in terms of diversity. But we are here to really speak to what faculty can do and to help make it easier for faculty to do things that either they haven't done or are not comfortable doing. We're excited to do that, to promote leadership, to promote tackling and addressing diversity in the classroom as role models to our students. And I think with that, I'll turn it over to David. Right? Did I miss something? Is that me?

>> No. This is -- This is -- This slide begins with two acknowledgements. The first is that diversity is, well, diverse. This is something that Ruth touched on already, that it encompasses many aspects of human identity. The second acknowledgement is that the four of us have chosen to focus on race and ethnicity. This is out of a conviction that in American society various aspects of identity are typically refracted through the lens of race and ethnicity. The second half of this slide has to do with the relationship of this institution to the outside world, a relationship that we oftentimes express through the Wisconsin idea. We want to be preparing students for professional lives outside the university. This has -- Diversity has to do with our most idealistic thoughts on this but also there's an utterly practical aspect of this. There's a growing body of evidence showing that employers, both in the public sector and in the private sector, are concerned about having a workforce that's culturally competent and they are taking steps to train their workforce if they can feel confident that the University of Wisconsin Madison is training graduate students or graduates and both graduate students and undergraduates in diversity, our students have a leg up. I think we can go to the next slide.

>> So I'll tell you a little bit about our ongoing and future plans. One of the things we're undertaking currently as we speak and have been undertaking this semester is simply to reach out, be present, be visible, and let you know who we are and that we're here. In addition to today's presentation and the past presentations you see mentioned, we will be present as a resource at a faculty chat on April 2nd of this year. We urge you to attend. The topic of that chat will be how we put the University of Wisconsin Madison's diversity statement into lived practice rather than verbiage on a website. So we again urge you to attend, encourage your chairs to attend. Other activities we're undertaking and working on include developing and offering a research mentoring module similar to the six-week curriculum or module in the women's faculty mentoring program. We're networking with other campus groups. You'll notice here and I'm sure you noticed in Patrick's presentation as well that there's kind of an alphabet soup of acronyms on this campus and so we see one of our functions as helping faculty to know what's there, find what they need amongst the really fantastic programs that already exist on this campus. And as a final component, this is partly where my bibliography comes in but partly also something each of us can do individually. We urge you and we ourselves continue to undertake individual reading discussion and development. We hold firm to the conviction that this work can't get off the ground and cannot proceed in an authentic way without genuine self-examination and understanding of one's own socialization in societal systems of inequity. And then of course our next, one of our next plans is to welcome the next cohort of diversity liaisons. We are here to recruit you. So please submit applications. Join us. Can I have the next slide, please?

>> And this one's very simple. These are four areas that we identified. We are calling them areas of exploration: hiring and retention, research mentoring, teaching and then finally self-inquiry and self-education. There's much more that we would like to say about these but I think we'll move on to the next, which --

>> So just as a question of what do to next, where do we go from here. We urge you to take these questions back to your departments, unit, other places in your community and I do want to recognize, too, that there are very valid, very stringent critiques of virtually all of the terms we're using like diversity, equity and inclusion rather than spend the entire time that we had today going through a lot of those. We simply chose to use the ones that the university uses. So first, how do we help departments and units take responsibility for inclusion and diversity in a way that will help the department achieve its goals? Second, how do we promote inclusion and diversity and meaningful identity in various departments and disciplines on campus? And to that I would add, how do different disciplines have different sets of skills, abilities, trainings, epistemologies that can be brought to bear on these questions and how can we learn from each other in these respects? And finally, when students graduate as we have emphasized, we really want them to have global competencies and work well in community with others. And we really hold that understanding one's own identity and especially the identities that are often invisible or unmarked such as white identity is crucial to that process. And so the question that we'd really like all of you to take away and that we ourselves are grappling with and working on is how do we get there. And so I think we're stopping there or do we have one more slide? Nope. Okay, questions for us. Good. So our notebooks are open. Our ears are open. We look forward to questions. Go back one slide.

>> So we're now open for questions. I think people who want to have questions directed toward Patrick and this group, can we ask that they speak first? And when those questions have finished, the questions directed towards me, we will those up. So questions for this group here?

>> Don't be shy.

>> Questions, comments or feedback as well.

>> Matt Merrins, Department of Medicine. I don't know the number. So I'm not sure if this is -- This might be to you, Patrick. So I'm really excited about the Targets of Opportunity Program and I think it's a really great program. I'm wondering if you guys could provide either collectively or maybe you the other end of that equation and how are we doing as a university on attrition? So what is the subtraction end of the equation look like because we've been sort of talking about historic numbers and trends and projections? Any good news?

>> Well, so I won't say there's not any good news. I'll say there's not any bad news, right. I will actually say there's not any worse news. We do know that the other side of the coin of recruiting is retention and we do know that there are unique challenges in particular for faculty of color that impact why they leave. It's not for the reasons that are naturally obvious or what we assume to be naturally obvious in terms of resource but I will say climate does play a role in that space and so we're wrapping our heads around, actually the provost has charged myself and the subcommittee my colleague Michael Bernard-Donals, who's hanging out in the back, vice provost for faculty and staff. We have a group of faculty who are working with us on these very issues to think about what are the constraints and/or opportunities for us to create experiences that would welcome a sort of incoming cohort or a new group of be it faculty of color or faculty who are from historically under-represented backgrounds or marginalized identities to campus in the fall. So it's something we're paying attention to because we know that that's the other side. We can recruit them but we're working on retaining them. That was a great question.

>> I don't see other questions. Thank you very much for all of your work on this. It's really great.

[ Applause ]

Are there any questions for me?

>> I know the hour is late, so I'll be brief. Kurt Paulsen, District 22. Just as to bring to everyone's attention, last week the University of California's library system canceled their multimillion-dollar contract with Elsevier. I'm not sure how you pronounce it, journals, a multibillion-dollar for-profit publishing arm. I noticed the University Library Committee last year recommended the need for a campus open access policy. So I guess I'm just bringing it to everyone's attention and asking if we can find out what an open access policy might look like and if there's any movement towards similar action in the University of Wisconsin system.

>> Provost, do you want to say anything about that?

>> We saw the news about the University of California and Elsevier and in fact Lisa Carter, Vice Provost for Libraries, sent it to me to make sure I saw it and we're going to monitor what's happening with them and whether they really want to cancel all their subscriptions or they're trying to force Elsevier to not give these -- Elsevier is particularly known for increasing their institutional subscription rates at a much higher rate than the other publishers. But certainly we do want to something that the libraries are interested in discussing with campus as a whole about public access. But it's a very complicated issue, as you know, because Elsevier publishes things like "The Journal of the American Chemical Society," you know very famous journals, high-impact journals in major fields. And so if you walk away from that, what does that mean for your faculty who are part of those professional societies and so on. It's not an uncomplicated issue but we are tracking it and thinking a lot about it and it would be something that faculty governance should, an issue that they should engage with.

>> I see no one else moving towards the microphone. Let's move on in the agenda. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes to the 4th February 2019? If not, I'm going to state the minutes are approved as distributed. Let me now recognize Professor Corinna Burger, who will present the annual report for the Kemper K. Knapp Committee.

>> Good afternoon. The Kemper Knapp Bequest Committee meets every year to evaluate bequests to fund special projects that enhance the educational and cultural life of the university community. The committee particularly favors projects that benefit undergrad students. So as in previous years, the major share of the income from the Kemper Knapp Bequest fund was allocated to scholarships and these include the undergraduate and law scholarships and minority scholarships administered through the Office of the Chancellor and Graduate School Fellowships. In addition to this ongoing support for scholarships, the committee makes regular allotments to the Lectures Committee and to the Morgridge Center for Public Service. And this year, the committee approved eight ongoing of these such commitments. The committee also funds one-time applications that typically range between $500 and $5000 and this year 2018-2019 academic year, we supported 14 such applications. So in this last meeting for the 2019-2020 academic year, the committee approved grants totaling approximately $1,600,000. And you have the information about those approved funding in the appendix in the materials that were provided for this session. I have to say that this year the committee took an extra initiative to confirm that the awards reach out to underserved students groups and students in underfunded areas. So to give you an example, the Sophomore Research Fellowship has typically been funded biomedical research in majority. So now we allocated special fund to support research for sophomores in the physical sciences, social sciences and humanities. And as in previous years, the committee's also reviewed the detailed narrative describing the student impact from previous award cycles. So in summary, the Kemper Knapp Bequest Committee encourages the development of new activities, new campus activities that benefit undergraduate students. So we encourage you to apply. We'll have such an activity and please don't hesitate to contact the committee if you have questions regarding if your particular activity fits the mission of the bequest. Thank you.

>> Are there any questions for Professor Berger? Thank you, Corina.

>> Thanks.

>> Let me call on Dorothy Farrar-Edwards to present the annual report for PROFS. Dorothy.

>> Good afternoon. I'm going to be brief because faculty document 2808 contains the whole report. So I know the afternoon is getting late. So PROFS is the voluntary membership organization actually founded by you more than 40 years ago. So we're the representative group funded by dues, very modest dues I'll say, 1/10 of 1% of your salary, and we rely on members to sustain the program. So I'm going to encourage you first to join if you're not already a member. So we're your legislative voice here and in Washington. We represent faculty by filing on important bills by our lobbyist Jack O'meara who's in the back of the room. We have numerous meetings with legislators or legislative aides, members of the Boards of Regents and others both here and the legislative delegation in Washington. We send members to Washington for Badgers on the Hill, so there are usually two meetings a year where we're there to talk about, to talk to staff and those legislators who are willing to talk to us about things that are of great importance, not just money, really important. Funding for student loans, for example, academic freedom, shared governance. So we're there as your voice at the federal and local level. A couple of things that I want to tell you about from last year is that there were several bills that would've really limited our ability to do our work including a bill on legislation limiting scientific research particularly fetal tissue research. We were able to file against that and actually had faculty speaking against it one on one. And that bill died in committee. Legislation limiting OB/GYN training at UW Madison. This legislation threatened our ability to train OB/GYN residents and Dean Golden and Laurel Rice both testified and they testified very effectively and that bill died also. The Mark Cook [assumed spelling] bill is really important for entrepreneurial activities on campus. Many of you may have great ideas that you want to bring forward in to fruition and private companies and the current policy on conflict of interest is very, very restrictive. That bill actually had joint sponsorship and it came very close to being voted on but died because of other bigger issues and has since been reintroduced and it will actually acknowledge that we have a stricter conflict of interest policy on this campus and that there was no need for this additional legislation. We meet one on one whenever possible with regents. It's an opportunity for faculty to get together in sort of a nonthreatening social setting with regents to kind of share thoughts and ideas and give them a better idea of the breadth and depth of the work going on, on this campus, and those meetings are going on. We have a meeting this week. And we held forums on campus or fora, I guess, on campus. I did have Latin training in my past. On campus to bring faculty together with experts on topics of interest. Last year, for example, we did a great forum on shared governance. This year we have I believe on April 2nd, we have a forum on the budget and Nick Hillman from the School of Education is working on organizing forum in early May on affordability on how we can better support our students and look at ways of making the college experience on this great campus more affordable. So we're here to advocate for all faculty. I would encourage you to think about joining and if you get asked to join the steering committee, we need a lot of expertise. We provide sort of we're on the spot. So we'll get a call, Jack will get a call from a legislator saying, hey, I need somebody who knows somebody about opioid abuse and we can provide a knowledgeable faculty member to go up to the capital to talk about it and provide background information that actually demonstrates that we are part of the Wisconsin idea and that we have a great deal to share with people of the state. Thank you.

>> Any questions for Dorothy? Thank you and thanks to PROFS for all they do. Let me recognize Professor Claude Woods, who will present the annual report on the Retirement Issues Committee. Claude.

>> So I'll be very brief here. The information is mostly in the written document. If you looked at that, you see it's a report for the past six years, not including this year. That period covers at first a time where the committee was quite larger than it is now than a time when it was somewhat inactive and then it was reconstituted as a smaller group, which has been quite effective. Last year was my first year on the committee. The chair was Professor Lynn Neidhardt and she did a wonderful job of getting the committee motivated and moving and so this year, I was fortunate enough to take over in the fall and we're very active committee. I think right now the attendance is very good and we hope to get back on a schedule of presenting a report to you annually, as normally would happen.

>> Any questions from Professor Wood? Thank you very much. Let me recognize Professor Emeritus Chuck Snowdon, who's going to present the annual report for the Ombuds.

>> Thank you. I wanted to let you know a little bit about the Ombuds office. We are a group of five professors, academic staff and university staff who are all retirees working a quarter time and this is a unique model in academics in the country, we think, where all five of us represent a cumulative 150 years of experience on this campus, so we know a lot of what's gone on in the past and can help people take care of things. A couple important things I want to emphasize. One is that our caseload has increased threefold over the last four years and current statistics for the current year suggest we're going to be at the same level of about 270 to 300 cases a year, up from 90 four years ago. I think there are several reasons for this. One is we're doing a lot of outreach. We have participated in over 40 outreach events in the last year and I think also part of it is due to a greater heightening of issues relating to climate on campus which is what the Ombuds office has meant to help deal with, help people deal with individual problems. We're confidential. We're not, rather we're supported by the provost office. We don't necessarily have to, she's not looking over us all the time. We are impartial and we're informal. So we're not a place to come and file formal complaint but we're a good place to talk over what an issue is and we like to encourage you to pass on to your staff and all of your other colleagues of the importance of the Ombuds office. We see slightly more faculty representation that exist in the population of employees and slightly fewer university staff that out of proportion, that proportion on university staff. We've tried very hard to reach university staff. We sent out a flier in the five major languages used by the university to every university staff employee over the past year and we're hopefully trying to do a better job of reaching university staff and helping them make use of our services as well. The most important thing I think to note is that we've started tracking hostile and intimidating behavior after the development of a new policy on campus and our numbers of cases relating to hostile and intimidating behavior gone from about 25% last year to over, to close to a third of our cases this year, a doubling of the absolute numbers of cases that we see. So I think there's a greater awareness of hostile intimidating behavior on campus. I think there are also some problems associated with it because we see people who are being accused of hostile behavior simply because an assistant professor disagrees or has objected to something that a senior professor has said and the senior professor files a complaint or because someone has been disciplined by their supervisor and the supervisor is complained against for hostile intimidating behavior. So we have to work a bit harder on defining what is an appropriate use of this policy and but also ultimately I think it's going to improve the climate. Those are the main points that I wanted to bring up but I'll stop and ask for any questions anyone might have. Okay, thank you very much.

>> Thank you, Chuck, and thanks to all of the Ombuds. I know you do really important work. We should now be on page 35 of the overall document. and I want to recognize Professor Rick Amasino, who will present a motion regarding FPP Chapter nine.

>> So I move adoption of faculty document 2811 which, as the chancellor said, is on page 35, starts on page 35 of your agenda packets. The proposed change is not so much a change as a specification. Chapter nine of FP and P defines the process for discipline of a faculty member and describes in detail the process for conducting an investigation and subsequently dealing with the results of that investigation. Chapter nine guarantees certain rights to faculty including steps for mediation and appeal. As currently written, there's no deadline on when an appeal may be filed. In practice, this is meant that the provost office and the office of legal affairs have been able to set the deadline for filing appeals often consulting with the office of the secretary of the faculty and others. In order to more clearly define this process, we are recommending that a deadline of 30 days be set which would be in line with other similar processes across campus.

>> This does not require a second since it comes from the UC. Is there discussion? Stay up here, Rick, because you're going to --

>> Hi. Betsy Stovall, District 63 Mathematics. I just wanted to clarify the background information on this. So it gives a range of timeframes for responses and could you say a little bit about how this historical information was collected and sort of what the time period is. So has it always been at most one month to respond? And if so, over what period?

>> So in other words, what has practice been?

>> Right. I mean, just clarifying what's meant by the usual practice.

>> Well, it's typically been in that range. The details of where the information came from I can ask Steve if that's okay to [inaudible].

>> Yeah, there's two things. One is for this deadline has varied anywhere from a couple of weeks to sometimes a couple of months, usually closer to a couple of weeks. The thing that we're saying that is the norm on campus is 30 days for similar kinds of appeals and we simply went through FP and P and ASBP [phonetic] and other documents to determine that for appeals for almost everything on campus, 30 days is the normal timeframe, when it is specified.

>> Yes. I mean, this is not a question but a statement but I am just a little bit nervous about a period of six days for individual faculty to collect information about what this practice has been, especially if it has in fact been more than a month in some cases.

>> It's been -- I would say it's been less than a month or more than a month in maybe two cases since I've been here. We have half a dozen to a dozen of these kinds of cases a year and the deadline in practice often ends up being, you could file an appeal up till when the discipline is imposed and because this process has all these other steps in it, sometimes that is quite short period of time. The provost letter comes out after the mediation and all the other processes have been gone through and the discipline may be imposed within a week or two and that's the window for filing an appeal. So I would say since I've been here in five years, maybe there's been two that have dragged out or been a little bit longer than a month but not more than that. And in general, the faculty are the ones who suffer. I mean, certainly for the administration, it will be good to know what the precise period is but the faculty also suffer if they don't know exactly when they're supposed to file an appeal as would be the case for junior faculty member who is non-renewed or something like that. We have very specific calendars.

>> Okay, thank you.

>> Any other comments or questions? If not, I will assume you are ready to vote. All those in favor of the motion to make this change, indicate by saying, "I."

>> [multiple speakers] I.

>> Any opposed, nay. The motion passes. Let me again recognize Professor Amasino who will now reintroduce the discussion you started last year regarding professor titles and I remind you that that got sent back and it's coming back to now again for a first reading after a rather lengthy re-discussion of the issue.

>> Okay, so as the chancellor just noted, this is the second first reading. We first discussed this, the Senate this is, at the November meeting. And this is starting on page 41 of your packet with documents 2776 and 2777. So at the November meeting, there were some issues raised and some input came to the University Committee after the meeting as well. All of that input was given to the committee that was drafting these recommendations and we asked them to bring back to us what you have in front of you. Before we discuss some details of that, there's one point I want to make or emphasize, that is that a motivation to propose these changes in the first place is to recognize exceptional academic staff with titles similar to how exceptional staff are recognized at other peer institutions. There are other motivations as well, for example in many disciplines, the professor title gives someone a much greater possibility and enhance their ability to obtain outside funding. And as you note in your materials, the committee came back to us with lots of information that will help us in our consideration of this issue. One particular bit of information that they have is on page 55 and I wanted to just briefly mention that issue. The recommendation for a teaching professor has with it assistant, associate and full titles. As it stands now, the recommendation for research professor is only associate and full. And again, on page 55 is from the committee a list of pros and cons that the committee thought was appropriate for us to consider regarding whether or not there should be an assistant research professor title, for example. So those were just some key points. There's a lot of information there and I'll open it up for discussion now or the chancellor will.

>> So it's a first reading. That means that we're not going to take any votes today but it is a time for any discussion or issues that you want to raise to be considered before a final resolution comes back.

>> I can't remember if I mentioned, this will come back at the April senate meeting, so at our next meeting.

>> Anyone want to comment on the assistant issue or not under the research titles. That is one of the current ones. Yes. Go ahead.

>> Andrea Gilmore-Bykovskyi, District 105. I come with a comment from faculty from the School of Nursing that pertains specifically to the professor of practice component of resolution 2776. There were no substantive concerns expressed to us from faculty regarding resolution 2777 or the teaching professor title. The specific concern was that because this title suggests but does not require a bachelor's degree that there may be risks that it might erode the basic expectation that the title of professor is conferred upon someone with at least some preparation as a teacher, preferably at a master's or doctoral level, was a comment that we had received but the comment was that because resolution 2776 includes both teaching professor and professor of practice that there was less enthusiasm for that resolution as a result of the contextualized issue with that specific title. And this comment is made is made in recognition that the Senate only sort of can provide input on the use of the word "professor" in the title but the comment arises from the context of the requirements for who might be in that position. Thank you.

>> So a question before you sit down. For example, would you or others like to see the professor of practice and teaching professor resolutions be separate? That's one way to --

>> That sounds like a potentially reasonable strategy. I think the concern relates to the lack of a requirement for a minimal or terminal degree and that there may be confusion with the use of the term "professor" and that is often understood to mean whereas these other titles include individuals who have some degree of at least minimally a bachelor's degree and actually in the other cases it's a terminal degree. Thank you.

>> Kurt Feigl, District 58, Geoscience. I have a question about the research professor part. Is this the appropriate time to talk about that? So just one resolution. Thanks. I'd like to add the phrase "participates in the peer review process" to the language on therefore it be resolved for the list of basic responsibilities on page 42 of our packet. I raised this issue earlier and there's a comment that it could be added. I'd like to make sure that it does get added, please.

>> Do you want to say again exactly what you want to add. Again, this is a comment to them because they will come back with the revised version next time.

>> Yes. On the list of basic responsibilities as follows, I'd like to add, "participates in the peer review process."

>> Okay.

>> So to provide feedback to the committee -- Pardon? Sorry. To provide feedback to the committee, what types of peer review are you referring to?

>> The same kind of peer review that leads to publishing in the peer review literature, so I'm talking about manuscripts and the peer review journals and proposals and grants that are benefiting the research professors.

>> Okay, I got it. Okay. Well, no. I was asking is it reviewing for journals or publishing in appropriate journals in the discipline or --

>> Publishing is already there but I'm asking that participating and actually doing the work from which we do not benefit directly, reviewing other people's work as peers, expertise that that is an essential part of any faculty member's duties.

>> It is. Is it listed anywhere? I'm not sure of the duties we require of our faculty.

>> I'm arguing that it is just as important as has established financial independence for a research programming including salary.

>> We get -- I get the argument and was wondering if it's --

>> So this is one I think you should look at, right, and take back and obviously see what equivalent things we say about faculty peer review.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you. Are there other comments or issues on this that people want to raise?

>> Hi. Barb King, District 105. Just two points of clarification brought forward by our faculty. Under the professor of practice, this bit of inconsistency. At one point it says that this is a short-term appointment and in many cases set up to be a terminal appointment but then on the bottom of page two, it specifically indicates that the title includes all rights available to other renewable and fixed term academic staff. So looking for some consistency on that as far as are these short term --

>> Can you just take that back and look at and see if it's inconsistent and make sure it is not.

>> Just for consistency.

>> People can be appointed academic short term --

>> Okay. And then the other comment that was brought forward by some of our professional faculty is that for individuals who are seniors and administration, if they don't currently hold a senior position, do they still meet requirements because it has the word "and," so just [inaudible]. If they retired, it actually was under page 19 on all these other documents that were included.

>> I think it's important to remember and we will clarify these things with the committee that nothing that you all have to say would affect the actual criteria for the job. That will be determined as part of the titling and total compensation exercise. So we can make these things clear that these are illustrative job duties and illustrative qualifications but they won't, nothing specific will be in the final resolution because that's up to the process that will be creating the new [inaudible].

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> Is it clear. Any other comments or questions on this? So we will resend this back to the committee in the UC and they will make whatever changes are required and bring this back to you for a second reading and a vote next week, next month, not next week. We turn to the last item on the agenda. I am at this point going to [inaudible] the chair to the provost. I serve on a senior level committee within TIAA and I consider it a conflict of interest to chair this item. So I will let the provost chair it and since it's the last item, I will let her adjourn the meeting at the end. So, Sara.

>> Alright, I'd like to recognize Assistant Professor Jenna Loyd who will introduce the resolution calling on the TSA Review Committee and TIAA to address certain transparency issues. This is a first reading.

>> Hello, colleagues. I'll try to keep it short. I know it's the end of the day. So this resolution that you have in front of you is one that has, we have consulted with University Committee regarding and I wanted to give you a little bit of background information about the resolution in front of you. So we are calling for some baseline transparency from TIAA-CREF. And it's building upon resolutions that we have put forward here by the faculty senate and also some of the leadership that the Madison campus and other UW campuses have shown on climate action and certainly conservation. So it calls on the TSA Review Committee to push for transparency. So who's the TSA Review Committee? They are -- So the UW tax sheltered annuity is the TSA part. The UW tax sheltered annuity 403B program is a supplemental savings program through which individuals can make contributions to their retirement savings. This program is administered by the UW system human resources and the TSA Review Committee is a ten-member committee consisting of faculty, academic and university staff that provides oversight of that program. So as of the 2017 annual report, which is the latest available, 26% of UW employees who are eligible for the Wisconsin retirement system contributed to one of the programs that are in the TSA program and the percentage here at UW campus is a little bit higher. So there are currently five providers within the program, of which TIAA is one. So about 42% of the contributions made at the UW level go to TIAA and five of the top six ones are held by TIAA. So this makes this a very relevant institution to try to ask for some basic transparency. The other reason for TIAA-CREF is an interesting and relevant agency to try and ask for some additional information is because they have made a public commitment to environmental and social governance and so this is something that we could ask them to take further steps. So who would we be joining in passing this resolution to ask for some basic information? We would be joining certainly our colleagues at AFT Wisconsin and AFT Nationwide who have passed resolutions calling for action from TIAA-CREF and we would also be following in some degree CalPERS, which is the state pension fund in California, which has taken an even greater step by updating its investment policy to include deforestation as one of the material risks that they include in their investment decisions. I have a colleague on hand, Ian Baird, who is a sort of expert, is an expert in these issues who can field any scientific questions that you might have. So I thank you for your attention.

>> The floor is now open for questions or comments about this resolution.

>> Steph Tai, District 44, Law School. I just wanted to voice my support for this resolution. I just came from a conference in Vanderbilt discussing sort of private actions in dealing with climate change and retirement investments was mentioned as one of the sort of foremost sort of opportunities for addressing this. So I wanted to echo my support.

>> Hi. Kurt Paulsen, District 22. Similarly supportive of this idea. I'm wondering if you had looked at -- So I guess the context for my remarks is about a year ago after the shooting at Parkland, I started writing a resolution about WRS, the Wisconsin Retirement System, where most of us have our pensions, divestment from weapons manufacturing and the like and there's probably any number of issues that a lot of us think that a large university should kind of exercise our values in terms of investment. So I was wondering if you had thought of looking at -- I realize this is more complicated because we have more governance through the TSA committee, but to look at perhaps, I'm not sure what I'm saying, more social responsibility on this issue from other WRS investments, which I realize is a state agency, not a voluntary program.

>> I think there are some of the groups who have been involved in trying to push for this within TIAA-CREF who have also been trying to do that through WRS. I don't know if perhaps Ian can speak to that more. But I think the question here for us is because the question of shared governance and who it is we can sort of put pressure on as faculty members is part of where the importance of our resolution coming from this body.

>> Any other questions or comments about this resolution? If not, we are adjourned. Thank you.