University Committee Meeting Minutes 2015-11-02

University Committee Meeting Minutes

approved November 9, 2015

November 2, 2015
Agenda

UC members present: Broman, Edwards, Litovsky, Meyerand (chair), Wanner, Wendt
Others: S. Smith, Moscicke, Richard, Olneck, Felber, O’Meara, McFadden, Radomski, Daniels, j. Smith

1. Meeting called to order: 1:00 PM.
2. Minutes of the meeting of October 26, 2015, approved.
3. Legislative update (PROFS) 
O’Meara asked for UC members to attend meeting with Dane County delegation and provided updates on concealed carry and fetal tissue proposals.
4. 1:12 PM: Litovsky arrived.
5. Summer session update (Jeff Russell, Sarah Barber)
a. Russell and Barber updated the UC on the summer term process to date and plans going forward, including meetings with governance groups and others. Ample discussion, including online courses, potential UCC impact, development of targeted summer “capstone/certificate” programs, lifelong learners, facilities, financial aid, and opportunities for students to pursue non-required interests.
b. Wanner asked whether new offerings will be tracked to determine if they are attracting new students or spreading existing students across more classes. Barber said goal is to build number of students and attract new mix. 
c. Broman asked if new summer courses were aimed at alleviation of bottlenecks. Barber replied that bottleneck courses already major part of summer and are not at capacity. These tend to be 100 and 200 levels, while summer students tend to be juniors and seniors. Thinking about “sophomore summer” and other programs that create new demand. Russell added example of ethnic studies requirements, which could be aimed at sophomores. 
d. Litovsky pointed out that many faculty are intimidated by directive to add new summer courses to existing ones. She also said that summer could create flexibility for students going abroad. 
e. Broman opined that it would be helpful to track unmet demand. Barber pointed to a pilot with summer deans on enrollment data that will be expanded to department level, but acknowledged difficulty of such tracking. Edwards pointed out that some schools have good data already on course costs and revenues and that tuition remission structure is a major problem. Ample discussion. 
f. Departments are receiving different fringe rates for budgeting. DCE uses 18.5%, but others told as high as 40%. Russell said DCE is working with budget office on this.
6. Discussion: Shared governance statement
a. The UC discussed and edited statement drafted by shared governance chairs. SOF will send the amended document to the other governance groups for their review and input. Hope is for an iterative process that will involve further review by the UC.
b. Olneck asked about the process for this document and informed the UC that AAUP will be sending suggestions on general principles of shared governance. Meyerand responded that we are in the early stages, emphasizing sharing of ideas and incorporating suggestions prior to formal vetting through governance. 
c. Broman emphasized that there is a need to clearly define purpose of this. Meyerand agreed, pointing out that this is for the shared government groups to clarify as we move forward. She added that the chairs believe this should be enshrined wherever it will be most concrete and lasting. The goal is a clear statement of what shared governance means on this campus that will serve as a guidepost moving forward, not unlike the “sifting and winnowing” plaque is for the Wisconsin Idea.
7. Provost update (Sarah Mangelsdorf)
Ample and wide-ranging discussion about issues related to IRBs and whether an ad hoc committee or some other mechanism is needed. General consensus that a review of internal rules (against the common rule) is needed, particularly focusing on minimal risk studies. Also agreement that a mechanism for gathering constructive suggestions for improvement and best practices would be valuable. Have to identify way to separate out poor protocols from solid research getting stuck on procedural review. Chancellor Blank joined the end of this conversation, passing on message that VCRGE will likely be asking for input on best IRB practices.
8. Chancellor update (Rebecca Blank)
a. Blank reminded the UC of the annual diversity conference later in week.
b. Blank updated the UC on UW Foundation board meeting last week. Alumni Association training event held as part of it, intended to tie alumni into campaign and raise advocacy issues.
c. Blank informed the UC that Office of Civil Rights is here in response to a complaint. 
d. Breaking news: Exact Sciences has backed out of JDS project. UW working to provide options to retain them in research park. Some concern that perception will be that UW stole them from downtown; in fact that is not what happened, but rather campus worked to keep them in Madison. 
e. Brief discussion about fetal tissue bill. Even if this does not come to floor this session, it will likely return. Continues to cause concern and efforts at compromise have so far been unfruitful.
f. Blank stated that she “cannot find words to express my opposition to” concealed carry bill.
9. Meeting adjourned: 2:36 PM.