approved January 26, 2015
a. Fair provided background and asked Schutt for update on where things stand.
b. Schutt briefed the UC on what has been done to date in terms of web presence development and planning for training and development. OHR has created a curriculum outline intended for online or blended use.
c. Several potential audiences identified:
i. By employment category: faculty, staff, students; incoming and in-service.
ii. Possible “champions group” of motivated people on leading edge.
iii. By involvement: recipients of behavior, supervisors, bystanders.
d. UC clarified its intent to make sure that anything made public is vetted by shared governance groups and consistent with legislation and discussion, but also recognizes work that has been done and does not want to “reinvent the wheel.”
e. Ample discussion, also including where to “house” committee, role of schools and colleges, educational/informational aspects (prevention vs punishment.)
f. Recommendation: Put activities on hold until shared governance committee is constituted.
a. Changes can be categorized in three major categories:
i. Assertion of full equivalency between complainant and accused.
ii. Standard change to preponderance of evidence (from clear and convincing)
iii. No direct cross examination between complainant and accused (or representatives).
b. Changes are to put UW System in federal compliance. The UC has no specific feedback or suggestions.
a. Possible elements of charge: develop process for complaints; identify campus unit that coordinates efforts; determine what information already exists, what needs to be created, and what should (and should not) be available, as well as how and where to make public; highlighting of prevention over discipline aspects; begin campus conversation about creating positive climate; periodic and transparent evaluation should accompany creation/maintenance of information. Charge elements fall into three main categories: process for complaints, process for education and training, connection to offices involved (OED, OHR, Ombuds, etc.).
b. Composition: Ex officio (experts, “champions,” those already involved), diversity of colleges and other units, VPFS.
a. UAPC membership: discussion of role of DGS on UAPC.
a. Further discussion of UAPC structure. Consensus that current “administrative” seat should include all deans and no seat should be reserved for a specific dean.
b. UC updated Provost on earlier discussion of UWS revisions.
c. Wendt updated provost on parental leave charge to FCEB. Ample discussion.
a. Announcement of diversity forum on 1/20.
b. Madison campus to host Regents in February.
c. Budget update: fluid. Ample discussion.
d. WID: Transition situation. Discussion.
e. Wendt update on FCEB parental leave charge. Discussion.