University Committee Meeting Minutes 2017-02-13
University Committee Meeting MinutesMinutes passed 02/20/2017
February 13, 2017
UC members present: Amasino (arrived 1:25), Bowers, Broman, Wanner, Wendt (chair)
UC member absent: Litovsky
Others present: S. Smith, J. O’Meara, M. Felber, H. Daniels, P. Schneider, L. Stoddard Cameron, C. Springer, M. Mayrl
Chair Amy Wendt called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and reminded the UC members of their assignments for the WSB dean search on-campus interviews. The minutes of the meeting of February 6, 2017, were approved. PROFS lobbyist Jack O’Meara summarized meetings with the legislative strategy group and state senator Harsdorf. Ample discussion about the governor’s budget proposal, including performance-based funding, self-insurance, and pay plan.
Discussion of changes to be made to PTR policy for March Senate. The following changes were approved by consensus:
The UC also discussed a request from a faculty member to get a legal opinion on whether passage of the new policy might jeopardize potential future “contract” suits. A clarification memo from Legal Services has been requested.FPP 7.17.C.7.b.: “If after the reviews the substantial deficiencies are confirmed by the provost dean, support from institutional resources for professional development shall be proffered. … The faculty member shall have three academic semesters to fully satisfy all of the elements of the remediation plan. If the remediation plan includes performance deficiencies in research, an extension of one academic semester may be granted by the
provostchancellor.”FPP 7.17.C.1.: “Reviews shall occur at least once every five years. … The review may be deferred, by approval of the Provost, for unusual circumstances such as when it may coincide with an approved leave, significant life event, promotion review, or other appointment, and the Provost may then determine a new review schedule. …”
Brief discussion of possible change of name of Social Studies division to Social Sciences. Given how often this topic has come up and the apparent lack of any objections, the UC agreed by consensus to move the change forward to the Faculty Senate.
Margie Rosenberg and Stephanie Tai presented the final report from the ad hoc committee on equitable and inclusive health care. The UC expressed their appreciation for all the work that went into the report. All present expressed general frustration with state decision to reinstate exclusion of transgender benefits; ample discussion about alternatives to address this, including possible self-insurance rider or other way of pooling cost across broader population. In terms of the reclassification of HIV/AIDS drugs to a higher tier, it is not clear whether there is opportunity to address this. Ample discussion, including of other sets of drugs that have been reclassified, including diabetes drugs, which were raised and then re-lowered. UC agreed that most effective next step is to have Committee on GLBTQ People in the University take the lead on following up, with support from and coordination with VPFS, OHR/VCFA, and UC. GLBTQ committee has drafted letter for VCFA and CHRO. Discussion of whether to advance this to Faculty Senate; consensus of all present that ongoing work by GLBTQ committee made it the logical place to decide whether a resolution was in order, based on their work with the above people and offices, but that the report should be presented to the Faculty Senate in March.
Wendt and the UC reviewed the earlier discussion on self-insurance and other issues relating to the ad hoc committee report with Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Laurent Heller. Heller will discuss these issues with CHRO and others and is looking forward to being involved with the issues as things move forward. Heller presented early campus reactions to and impressions of the governor’s budget proposal, but it will take some time to review all of the details and implications. Additional reinvestment is encouraging, but there are many other elements that will require analysis. Student fee option could cause problems with bus contract and student activities. Still waiting on capital budget proposal. Compensation plan is complex and interwoven with other items. Performance metrics and workload items still being worked on. Ample discussion throughout.
Dean of the Graduate School Bill Karpus reported that the perception that GFEC was overburdened with program reviews was not shared by GFEC itself. Only burden was when reviews of smaller departments are conducted and the department does not have adequate administrative staff for logistics. In these cases, the Graduate School will be able to help out. Karpus also briefed the UC on the stipend increase for graduate assistants. While there is still much work to do in this area, this is a positive step forward and gets campus closer to back on track. Graduate School is working with OHR to incorporate old TA contract language into HR policy to address real need for written graduate student protections, especially on grievance processes. Karpus discussed the Grad School’s overhaul of the fellowship competition, which will be renamed the Graduate Student Resource Competition to better reflect the gamut it covers. There will be a total revamp of the applications, pulling in data that already exists and only requiring applicants to clarify and/or add new information. Ample discussion and GS will continue to work with various units (including governance) as things move forward. Karpus particularly seeking faculty input to determine needs and nuances of departments. One item in particular that has yet to be resolved is composition/structure of selection committee. Wendt alerted Karpus to the ongoing Faculty Assistant discussions and asked about GFEC’s discussion of recommendations from the ad hoc committee on the future of the dissertation. Karpus indicated he will send minutes from GFEC meeting, which outline changes adopted and items still left to address.
Chancellor Rebecca Blank summarized the WARF annual meetings, which included an exercise by new director thinking through mission and so on, great conversations with board and others, and affirmation of incredibly strong commitment by board members to university. Blank and the UC discussed the governor’s budget proposal at length, noting in particular that we are still in the very early part of discussions and analysis. Of the approximately $105M in “new” funds, $50M is the lapse restoration and about $42M is the UWS request, which the governor links to request that BOR create some connections to performance. Other funds and items include HEAB financial aid to low income students, $35M to fund tuition cut, request that BOR establish workload policy, delayed compensation exercise, discussion 3-year degree programs, $100K for Alzheimer’s research, $200K for WARM, requirement for internships/work experience, proposal to include statement about academic freedom and freedom of speech in policy/law, and some items related to flexible courses (Extension). Allocable fee option is concern to ASM for good reason.
The committee reviewed a draft policy on the amount of time divisional committees should consider when a faculty member transfers from the CHS track to the tenure track at the associate or full rank. Following discussion on various aspects, Broman moved adoption of the following policy, to be incorporated into the appropriate divisional committee and other documentation.
When an associate/full clinical professor transfers to the associate/full rank on the tenure track, the “clock” to be considered by the divisional committee shall be calculated in a manner similar to that of probationary tenure track faculty with clinical duties. The relevant dean’s office and/or department chair shall indicate what percentage of time the associate/full clinical professor devoted to clinical duties during their appointment. As with tenure track clock extensions and initial appointments, clinical responsibilities that approximate 20% or more of a faculty member’s workload justify a one-year clock extension, and clinical duties that approach 40% justify a two-year extension. For appointments with greater clinical duties, additional time may be negotiated, but in no case shall the divisional committee consider more than ten years of scholarly activity. These extensions are added to the presumed initial base of 6 years, paralleling the initial clock of tenure track faculty.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The UC discussed, but did not yet resolve, other issues related to such transfers. All agreed that there are conflicts between campus policy for probationary tenure-track faculty and SMPH/VetMed policies for CHS faculty, but further discussions with deans, chairs, the provost, and others are required before an appropriate resolution can be reached.
Anja Wanner moved to convene in closed session pursuant to Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) and (f) to discuss personnel matters. The motion was seconded and passed at 3:10 p.m. The UC considered and unanimously approved one tenure clock extension. The UC discussed the faculty co-chair of the ITC, as well as possible members for a CFRR-requested de novo review committee and asked the SOF to solicit other input. Tom Broman’s motion to reconvene in open session was seconded and passed at 3:38 p.m., at which time Wendt adjourned the meeting.