University Committee Meeting Minutes
approved February 23, 2015
a. Extensive discussion of PROFS-UC relationship.
b. Discussion on system-wide budget documents and resolutions from faculty reps.
a. Discussion of faculty retirements.
b. Bazzell informed the UC that campus will move forward with implementation of the new budget model, to be applied to 5% of the budget. Ample discussion.
c. Bazzell and the UC discussed the need for a governance committee on budget. Consensus that reconstituting the committee in FPP 6.52.D. would not meet campus needs. Consensus that an ad hoc committee with expertise and understanding of the new budget model and current budget issues, as well as defined relationships with governance groups, is desirable.
d. Discussion of reframing how tuition and GPR are considered in order to fully appreciate and account for state subsidy and per student amounts. Bazzell pointed out the practical constraint that these dollars are not currently segregated in this way; a decision would have to be made to budget differently. Consensus that this is worth exploring.
e. UC asked Bazzell what is known about fringes in the budget proposal. Early conclusion is that budget shorts campus by about $10M in the first year of the biennium. Both System and campus are still unpacking the numbers, but current calculation is that proposal represents an overall $100M cut when fringes, municipal services, and other factors are accounted for. Ample discussion.
a. Mangelsdorf informed the UC that an international travel memo will be released soon, requiring students and strongly encouraging faculty and staff to notify campus when and where they go overseas.
b. Mangelsdorf informed the UC about preparations for layoffs and cost-cutting measures. When asked whether any schools or colleges were considering department closure or consolidation, she indicated that none are talking about it and it couldn’t happen by July 1 anyway. Many units are looking at shared support services and the like.
c. When asked whether assistant professors were expressing concerns about being laid off, Mangelsdorf said that they were, but that they are being assured that promotions to tenure are not changing. She indicated that we are losing recruits, but cuts will not be achieved through faculty layoffs (tenured or untenured).
d. UC asked about the budget impact of meeting state- and federally mandated compliance. Mangelsdorf said that campus is collecting information on these costs and is still planning a new compliance officer position.
e. Ample discussion of budget issues, including cuts that will directly affect students and tension between desire to protect students and fact that they and their parents are our most effective advocates.
a. Blank updated the UC on budget forums, which were very well attended and successful.
b. Blank updated the UC on alumni outreach efforts, including online forum.
c. Blank updated the UC on her discussions with legislators and others. Much sympathy with size of cut and impact, but difficulty identifying alternatives.
d. When asked about whether accepting federal Medicare funds were possible, Blank indicated that this was not likely a workable solution with this governor at this time, although there are some in the Capitol who favor it.
e. In response to a question, Blank indicated that tuition remission changes will generate about $5M.
f. Blank indicated her outrage that individual faculty members are being singled out for attacks. UC believes that she does not need to address this directly, but appreciates her support. Discussion of ways to communicate work that faculty do, including vignettes prepared for System and videos disseminated through University Communications.
g. Ample discussion on various budget issues, including poor optics of protests, different percentages being used to describe cuts, and possible ways to cover gaps.
h. Blank informed the UC of two successful events: biomedical research discussion and launching of South Madison location.
a. Covaleski called the UC’s attention to items that have arisen since his last UC appearance: two ticket price increases and an approved budget, NCAA/Power Five issues, and ratification of football coach hire. Covaleski described ticket increase and budgeting process and how it differed this year.
b. Covaleski updated the UC on discussions with academic staff and students about hiring and described process and how it might be changed. Suggestion: at first Athletic Board meeting each year, define ad hoc hiring committee to use just in case. Small committee would be difficult given requirements of Board and governance groups. Ample discussion. Covaleski will send rationale for committee composition prior to next meeting with UC, at which a compromise committee composition will be addressed. Suggestion: Find way for governance groups and sports liaison to have input on Athletic Director’s short lists.
c. In response to a question, Covaleski updated the UC on income from Big10 Network contract. Discussion.
d. The UC asked Covaleski if the Athletic Director and high-profile coaches could be encouraged to speak to the pending budget cuts and their impact on quality of education. Discussion.