University Committee Meeting Minutes 2015-11-16
approved November 30, 2015
November 16, 2015
UC members present: Broman, Edwards, Litovsky, Meyerand (chair), Wanner, Wendt
Others present: S. Smith, Moscicke, Studer, Richard, Kendziorski, Schneider, O’Meara, Felber, Radomski, Daniels, Bernard-Donals, McFadden, Bump
1. Meeting called to order: 1:00 PM.
2. Minutes of the November 9, 2015, approved.
3. Legislative update (PROFS)
Regent Beiling would like to meet with PROFS about tenure task force.
4. Associated Students of Madison (Jessica Franco-Morales, Kyla Kaplan, Madison Laning)
a. Kaplan updated the UC on the ASM budget process, the segregated fee task force, and the additional pressure that the budget cuts have put on seg fees. Laning added the seg fee task force was appointed last January but put on hold and only charged by Cross last month. ASM stresses uniqueness of Madison campus and problems that would be created by same seg fee rules across System. Franco-Morales pointed out that fees continue under attack, sustained by governor veto. Unprecedented scrutiny predicted. Ample discussion about increased pressure on fees for capital projects, referenda and mandated support, cost to continue, effect of tuition cap, lobbying, control over funds, allocables vs non-allocables, etc. UC offered support, including anything fac reps could do. Need for increased communication between BoR and campus.
b. Franco-Morales said that student hourly wages are a current ASM priority. VPFA Bazzell asked Union Council to come up with plan/model of what increase in student wages would like (1) all on seg fees, (2) partly funded through seg fees, and (3) without seg fees at all. The third option is new. Ample discussion of wages, allocables, and non-allocables (Unions, Rec Sports, UHS), whose entire budget is seg fees and revenues. Although increased student wages is a priority, increasing seg fees is also a concern.
c. ASM reps raised shared governance and creation of policy statement reinforcing sustainable approach based on practice. Student governance unique due to connection to Student Life, which is important but more related to staff than ASM or students in the division. Ample discussion, including need to define relationships, connect students to other groups, access to information, two-way communication. UC recommends having ASM regularly represented at UC meetings.
5. VC for Research and Graduate Education update (Marsha Mailick)
a. Discussion of URC draft structure. Consensus that this deserves full discussion at Faculty Senate and December agenda may not allow it the attention it deserves. UC would like time to get better sense of what current URC members feel. Will invite them to UC in December/January to discuss slate composition, divisional committee role, and to get a sense (particularly from AH members) about scale of research represented. Meyerand will update Senate during December announcements. UC will work on charge to divisional committees. Mailick’s State of Research Enterprise will be moved to February along with first reading of URC proposal, then vote in March, elections in April.
b. Discussion of UW2020 applications. Response has been gratifying. Will learn from first round as we move forward.
c. Broman and Wendt asked for suggestions of large research groups to inform the work of the ad hoc committee on faculty supervisors. Discussion, including possible use of PI portal to convey supervisor information.
d. Mailick called the UC’s attention to another online resource: PI Financial Tool. Will provide greater flexibility and power (e.g., in simulating scenarios with real budget data) than WISDM or existing “shadow” tools. UC consensus: Awesome.
6. Committee on Women in the University (Natalia de Leon Gatti, Rebecca Scheller, Lindsey Stoddard-Cameron)
Gatti shared biennial report, highlighting changed composition from majority faculty to 6-6-6, with 2 students (ex officio). COWU worked very closely with wide variety of campus activities (diversity framework, hostile and intimidating behavior, child care, sexual harassment and misconduct, data gathering on tenure rates, etc.). COWU would like administration to think about ways of collecting data on reasons for leaving and disparities in achieving tenure, particularly by gender and across divisions. Ample discussion. UC agrees that more data is needed and a longitudinal approach would be illuminating.
7. Interim Vice Chancellor for University Relations update (Charlie Hoslet)
a. Hoslet reviewed VCUR structure and updated UC on ongoing search.
b. Hoslet illustrated VCUR’s statewide outreach initiative, marketing efforts, and legislative interactions. Litovsky asked about Dane County legislators’ exhortation for faculty to do more statewide promotion. Hoslet agreed that the more we can get out, the better. A lot of this activity goes through UR, but a lot also comes from schools/colleges. UR is always looking for ideas, stories, partnerships that can be used more intentionally than simply press releases.
c. Discussion of current legislative issues.
d. Broman asked whether VCUR had fact sheets about impacts of cuts. Hoslet responded that it is still a little early. They have examples, but plan to survey schools and colleges and get real data/impacts.
8. Chancellor update (Rebecca Blank)
a. Blank raised topic of events at Missouri and related demonstrations, which will be ongoing. These are issues of concern to all of campus and there is a lot to do to reduce isolation and hostility. Ample discussion.
b. UW international offices and staff did amazing job tracking down UW “family” in Paris. Many big questions, such as how this affects international students on our campus, remain to be answered.
c. Blank pointed to revised payment structure for graduate assistants.[Final report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Gradate Assistantships; related document] Existing structure unique to our campus, possibly illegal, and does not work well for all units. New minimum will be set at current level. New DGS learned that graduate students had not been consulted on development of new structure and has met with TAA, who remain opposed to process. New structure will not lower any pay, will increase some and should create opportunities in places where markets differ. Demonstrations expected. Ample discussion, including differing impact on departments and ability to top off, which has potential to be corrosive to morale. Blank believes this will be about how levels are used to address existing inequities. DGS is open to discussion; implementation not until next year.
d. Blank has had several conversations with chairs and others about tenure policy. Position is that policy on this campus approved, pending System. Blank believes it likely that System will pass something broad enough that our policy will fit within it. As we enter recruitment season, need to be clear with chairs about how to talk about this and where we are. Discussion.
e. Blank announced that her new chief of staff (Matt Mayrl) starts today. May be some restructuring of office involving him more in substantive issues.
f. Blank updated the UC on upcoming events, including her speaking at US Congress and other groups, and last home game this weekend.
9. Discussion: CURAFA membership and charge (Christina Kendziorski)
a. Ample discussion around CURAFA’s description in FPP and ways to make the committee more connected and impactful. Vice Provost for Enrollment Management should be added to membership. Charge in 6.51. seems to point in wrong direction. Oddities in how this committee operates include receiving charge directly from chancellor at least once.
b. Kendziorski reported that the committee spent a lot of time looking at peers and information given to recruits, admits. Enormous difference with how UW-Madison operates. Discussion about transparency, accessibility, advertising, visibility.
c. Discussion of process failure in non-resident cap policy development.
d. CURAFA would like clearer guidelines and information on their deliverables.
e. OSOF will staff CURAFA and seek their input on FPP changes.
10. Teaching Assistants Association (TAA) (Sergio Gonzalez, Cynthia Burnson)
TAA representatives distributed several handouts and described process of developing new pay plan as they understand it. Ample discussion. Both TAA and UC expressed confusion about process. Complete lack of student input on development of plan. TAA primarily concerned about process, but also wonder whether this is first step in redefining employee-employer relationship. TAA and UC agree that process should start over, be as inclusive as possible, and lead to a non-piecemeal approach to constructing a “handbook” that makes sense.
11. Discussion: Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
a. Broman summarized discussions with various people, identifying 3 major issues:
i. Over-concern with respect to protection of university/institutional interests at expense of protection of human subjects (whether IRBs function is to protect human subjects or defend university)
ii. Overestimation of risk
iii. Too ready recourse to legal advice
b. In addition there were some minor procedural issues and irritations.
c. Ample discussion, including sense that there are legitimate concerns on both sides, how to move the discussion out of angry, reactive mode, and intersection of federal laws, funder rules, and campus processes. Recognition that violations are very expensive and also that bottleneck of regulation is likely in excess of federal regs.
d. Consensus that there is need for a committee, which would start with SB IRB. HS needs discussion too, maybe separate or later committee. SB-focused committee could review policies, best practices, fit with national standards, possible reform. Broman will draft for December discussion by UC.
12. Litovsky moved to convene in closed session pursuant to Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) and (f) to discuss personnel matters. Seconded. Motion passed: 3:47 PM.
13. Rule waivers
a. The UC reviewed a dual role request, but was unable to consider it due to missing materials. SOF will obtain revised submission from department.
b. The UC considered two tenure clock extensions (one of which was a resubmission for missing materials). Both were approved unanimously.
14. Committee membership
a. IRB committee membership moved to a future meeting, after charge is defined.
b. The UC reviewed the charge of a new ad hoc work rules committee and considered names to fill the requested faculty representative on the committee. The UC felt that someone with background in represented groups would be appropriate but was unable to identify specific individuals. The SOF will contact units with faculty working on labor relations to identify potential committee members and bring those nominations/suggestions to a future meeting.
c. The UC discussed membership for the ad hoc committee on the academic calendar. Consensus that more faculty are needed, although this does not have to be a faculty majority committee. Several nominations. UC unanimously named SOF as chair.
d. Discussion of backup nomination if Nursing search and screen requires a change.
Meyerand presented the history of this case. Ample discussion. Additional information needed from complainant and unit. SOF will request.
16. Wendt moved to reconvene in open session. Seconded. Motion passed: 4:52 pm.
17. Meeting adjourned at 4:52 pm.