approved March 16, 2015
a. Brief discussion of whether to pursue committee name change.
b. Brennan briefed the UC on issues that have arisen with the Committee on Committees’ mandate and items that are in need of further discussion and action. Much of this will be addressed by the ad hoc Chapter 6 committee in the coming weeks. Ample discussion.
i. Curriculum Committee is too big and not sufficiently controlled by faculty. This is a good example of a broader issue of committees’ being created with unclear rationale for how they are structured, staffed, and/or charged.
ii. Overall campuswide committee workload needs greater attention. The value of committee service needs to be better communicated.
iii. Rationale for why some committees are elected and others appointed needs to be revisited. Currently no coherent reason for distinction other than tradition. Recommendation: Committees that are about policies with broad impact requiring broad representation should be elected; those that are about procedures must be appointed.
iv. Brennan will be added to ad hoc chapter 6 review.
v. Concern about bias towards sciences in URC appointments.
vi. Lines of accountability, reporting, review not clear to Committee on Committees as regards some committees. Brennan stressed need for contacts to be more clearly identified and importance of making sure that faculty and university have proper amount of guidance and oversight. Often committee chairs are even unclear about what authority/responsibility they have.
vii. Need to engage with junior faculty earlier to affirm importance of governance. Need to think not only about protecting them, but also about protecting governance. Need to affirm worth and credit of service and how it can expand and enhance scholarship.
viii. Would like to rethink process of timing of elected and appointed committees and commends efforts to create committee database and self-nomination website. Need to build tools that are responsive to current needs.
ix. Would like to establish guidance about what happens when people go on sabbatical. Current process results in too many single-year appointments.
a. Ample discussion of post-tenure review.
b. UC followed up on Harsdorf meeting and ways to get documentation to legislature on time to degree. Ample discussion about messaging.
c. UC and provost discussed revenue streams, matching, and budget cuts. Provost updated UC on budget discussions with schools and colleges.
a. Blank updated the UC on university responses to the recent shooting in Madison, fundraising campaign events and Foundation meeting in Naples, and the upcoming visits of candidates for VCRGE.
b. Blank updated the UC on budget discussions, including deans’ responses and meetings, tuition remission announcement, and UW System activities. With more of the budget proposal document analyzed, the total figure for the cuts is now seen as $396 million over the biennium.
c. The UC discussed ASM’s idea for greater involvement with WAA on budget.
d. In response to a question, Blank provided a summary and update on the status of integration of UW Hospital and the medical foundation. Plan is for foundation to become part of hospital, maintaining some of its own organization for HR and the like, but falling under the purview of the hospital board. This would have no effect on compensation of anyone other than clinicians. Chancellor’s role will not change.
e. UC asked about System task forces. No news or request for nominations yet.
a. Clayton updated UC on context and history of this committee and presented its report. Discussion.
b. Clayton will present report at April Senate meeting.