University Committee Meeting Minutes 2015-11-30

approved December 7, 2015

November 30, 2015

UC members present: Broman, Edwards (until 1:45), Litovsky, Meyerand (chair), Wanner, Wendt
Others present: S. Smith, McManus, Moscicke, Bump, Richard, J. Smith, Felber, Studer, Mangelsdorf, Franco-Morales, Daniels, Radomski, O’Meara, Vaughan, Lucas, Burnson, Owczarek, McArthur, Zaman, McDaniel, Mayrl

1. Meeting called to order: 12:30 PM.
2. Discussion: UWS Tenure Task Force meeting (Patricia McManus, Sarah Mangelsdorf)
General discussion to prepare UW-Madison representatives to System tenure task force. 
3. 12:52 PM: Litovsky arrived.
4. SOF called attention to request for charge from Commission on Faculty Compensation and Economic Benefits.
5. Wendt pointed to upcoming meeting of ad hoc committee on hostile and intimidating behavior, welcoming any and all input or advice. Discussion.
6. Minutes of the meeting of November 16, 2015, approved.
7. Minutes of the meeting of November 23, 2015, approved.
8. Minutes of the meeting of November 25, 2015, approved.
9. There was no legislative update as O’Meara was at PROFS meeting with Regent Behling.
10. Libraries consolidation update (Ed Van Gamert, Lesley Moyo)
a. Van Gamert reported on the libraries consolidation process, noting that “consolidation” is something of a misnomer. The main work of the group is a re-envisioning of the libraries. (Handout distributed and PowerPoint available to UC.) The final (dense and lengthy) report of the committee develops a plan for the next two to three decades.
b. Van Gamert laid out the following themes of the report
i. Where is the saving of money? Answer: There is none in the short run. Closing a library does not save money necessarily. Plan is about colocation, reduced number of more team-based service points, redefining role of libraries, and moving funds from staffing to collections. Also need to respond to $1.1M cut. 
ii. Concern that while talking about improved services, things are going away. Whole discussion is iterative and individualized. Goal is not to close libraries, but to colocate and repurpose. Have to think about different model.
iii. Reallocation of spaces. For example, Steenbock considered for another WISCEL.
c. University Library Committee has endorsed recommendations. 
d. Message: We are on the right track and it’s hard.
e. Ample discussion, including fundraising (comprehensive campaign), space use, open access (proposal from faculty on ULC will go to UC, provost, VCRGE). Asked if there would be staff reductions, Van Gamert replied that there would, but hope is to cover through attrition and reassignment.
11. Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education update (Marsha Mailick)
a. Mailick updated UC on campus event with Senator Baldwin, who expressed deep commitment to UW-Madison, especially research and graduate education. Baldwin pointed to power of narrative in advocating for policy change. Mailick pointed out that UC is the crossroads of narrative of this campus. As powerful stories are encountered, Baldwin is eager to receive them.
b. Mailick reminded UC of 5-year timeline for all OVCRGE Center reviews. Three under way this year: Arboretum, WID, and Aquatic. When review reports are completed, they will go to URC. Discussion.
c. Mailick indicated that her office is deep into UW2020 reviews. Consequence of huge response may be pushing off some internal deadlines (notification).
12. 1:47 PM: Edwards left for tenure task force. She surely would have rather stayed.
13. The UC reviewed, revised, and approved a new draft post-tenure review policy proposal. Marked up version will go to Senate for final action.
14. Chancellor update (Rebecca Blank)
a. Blank received a letter from an assistant professor expressing concern about the tenure process. Blank and the UC discussed the System tenure task force and the UW-Madison post-tenure review draft proposal. Blank pointed out that the latter is not so much “new” as a reinforcement of existing policy. She remains cautiously optimistic that our campus policies will be adopted by BoR, but process has to work its way through.
b. Blank called attention to U of Chicago closure. Concern about possible copycats. Police monitoring closely.
15. Graduate School update (Bill Karpus)
a. Meyerand updated Karpus on UC discussions on new graduate assistant pay structure. Karpus in turn conveyed the status of the new policy, including realization that original deadline could not be met and that much communication still needed to be done. He acknowledged it is not clear yet what unintended consequences of the policy might be, and full campus input, especially from students, is required. Series of town hall meetings will start with graduate students, then Graduate School, perhaps general faculty and more student meetings. At beginning of March, Karpus will report to deans council. New plan ideally in place September 2016 to take effect in May 2017.
b. Change from current pay plan is priority for central administration, but changes can still be made to new policy. (This was repeated several times: policy has to change, but the new one can be modified prior to implementation.) Karpus emphasized he will not allow pay/stipends/benefits to be reduced as result of this. Data analysts looking at each department to determine impact on, for example, multiple appointments. Need time for analysis as well as communication. Ample discussion.
c. TAA representatives see contradiction between budget neutral (for units) and no cuts (to students) promises. Also pointed to possible conflict between departments and substantial negative impact on graduate assistants who work outside their own department (e.g., 40% of the TAs in math come from other units).
d. Wanner pointed out additional complication of reduced percentage (at higher rate) and lost hours of work.
16. CIO update (Bruce Maas, Rafi Lazimy)
a. Maas provided two handouts, one on the organization of the Enterprise IT Decision Making (EITDM)planning board and one on the structure for data governance. He walked the UC through the former and explained campus IT oversight, in conjunction with the faculty-led IT Committee. Still need one faculty “domain specialist” and some students, but structure basically in place. Maas would like broader pool of people to avoid fatigue factor. These are significantly demanding positions.
b. Lazimy indicated that the above is in context of a broader look at balance of central and local IT initiatives. Maas added that in the past, little was done centrally. Moving towards rightsizing, where what can be scaled gets scaled while still maintaining appropriate local elements. Will take a while to sort through. Discussion.
c. Litovsky observed that this seems to focus mainly on teaching and administration and not really on research enterprise. Maas explained that this is true because they started with administration and teaching, leaving research, which will be more difficult and idiosyncratic, until bugs worked out in other areas. However, pointing to second handout, Maas showed that they have begun work on the data management/governance piece, which will impact research more directly. Nevertheless, UC observed that Data Stewardship Council includes almost no faculty and no apparent role for the FPP IT committee. Maas explained that goal of data management/governance structure is coherent (correctly categorized) and protective (categories secured appropriately) system. Will be lots of work, but threats are real.
17. Vice Provost for Faculty and Staff update (Michael Bernard-Donals)
a. Bernard-Donals distributed and discussed handout on new policy on minimum qualifications for instructional staff. Will go to UCC in December, UAPC in January. Biggest challenge will be logistics of tracking. Verification another hurdle. Main outline of policy: instructors must have one degree higher than that being taught, with some terminal exceptions and provision for alternative qualifications. Discussion.
b. Update on three issues being discussed with deans
i. Strategic Hiring Initiatives and Dual Career Faculty Program. Working well despite not enough funding. Some discussion of whether to extend to CHS faculty although there may not be much demand. Big challenge is sufficient expertise. Deans suggest partnering with school/college HR for expertise base/network and partnering more systematically with Office of Corporate Relations.
ii. Criteria for promotion to full. General fact finding with schools/colleges. Little uniformity, but main concern is that each division have process that is adhered to.
iii. Chair terms and compensation. Practice also varies widely. Investigating what various practices are, in part for guidelines, but also to get people to think about tenures and support of chairs, make job more attractive. Relates to governance because FPP doesn’t provide for terms, only annual preferential balloting. UC might want to look at whether annual preferential balloting is best method or if something else would have benefit. In addition, chairs not evaluated systematically. Ample discussion throughout. 
18. The UC reviewed and approved the Faculty Senate agenda.
19. Meeting adjourned: 4:22 p.m.