Transcription of the UW-Madison Faculty Senate meeting, December 5, 2016 (without the closed session proceedings) Chancellor Rebecca Blank Recognize Professor Blair Savage to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Robert Bless. (wife, Diana Bless in attendance.) Recognize Professor Emeritus Philip Farrell to present the Memorial Resolution for Dean Arnold Brown (former colleagues in attendance, including Paul DeLuca and Richard Moss) Recognize Professor Irwin Goldman to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Lloyd Peters Agenda Item 5. Chancellor: Recognize Professor Laurel Rice who will present the annual reports of the Athletic Board (Fac doc 2655; Agenda pp. 9-34) Agenda Item 6. Chancellor: Recognize Professor Tom DuBois who will present the annual reports of the University Lectures Committee. (Fac doc 2656; Agenda pp. 35-36) Agenda Item 7. Chancellor: Recognize Professor Judith Burstyn who will present the annual report of PROFS. (Fac doc 2657; Agenda pp. 37-40) Agenda Item 8. Chancellor: Recognize Patrick Sheehan, director of workforce relations, who will present the Minor Protection and Adult Leadership policy. (Fac doc 2658; Agenda pp. 41-45) Agenda Item 9. Chancellor: Recognize Assistant Professor Andrea Ruppar who will introduce a resolution in solidarity with students, staff, and faculty experiencing discrimination. (Fac doc 2659; Agenda p. 46) Agenda Item 10. Chancellor: Recognize Assistant Professor Jerome Camal, who will present a resolution on undocumented students (Fac doc 2660; Agenda p. 47) SPECIAL ORDER--NO LATER THAN 4:45 PM Agenda Item 10. Chancellor: "May I please have a motion to move into closed session pursuant to Wis. Stats. 19.85 (1)(c) and (f) to consider the recommendation of the Committee on Honorary Degrees." >> I am told we have a quorum. So I'm going to call the meeting to order and ask all of you to rise for the reading of the memorial resolutions. Let me recognize Professor Blair Savage to present the memorial resolution for Professor Emeritus Robert Bless. >> Good afternoon. Professor Emeritus Robert Bless died in 2015, three days short of his eighty-eighth birthday. He joined the UW astronomy faculty in 1958 and retired in 1994. Professor Bless specialized in the design, construction, calibration of robotically controlled astronomical instruments. He was a major contributor to the success of the world's first orbiting astronomical observatory. Operating above the earth's atmosphere from 1968 to 1972, the observatory measured the ultraviolet light produced by hundreds of astronomical objects and revolutionized our understanding of those objects. The first orbiting astronomical observatory is quite analogous to the first airplane, if you sort of step way back and think about that. Professor Bless went on to design and build the High-Speed Photometer, one of the instruments aboard the Hubble space telescope when it was launched into orbit in 1990. The Hubble space telescope became the most scientifically-successful observatory ever created. The origins of the success of the Hubble space telescope can be directly traced to the pioneering work in space astronomy in the 1960s and 70s. Professor Bless was a dedicated and extremely effective teacher at all levels of university education. He was instrumental in the establishment of Space Place, the public education and outreach program of the astronomy department. He was an Invaluable member of the department providing his wise counsel and friendship to everyone. He will be missed. Thank you. >> And I'd like to recognize Professor Bless' wife, Diane Bless, who is here also. Thank you for coming. [ Applause ] Let me recognize Professor Emeritus Philip Farrell to present the memorial resolution for Dean Arnold Brown. Arnold Brown Junior, MD was Professor of Pathology and Dean of the University of Wisconsin Medical School from 1978 to 1991. Excuse me. Known affectionately as Bud, our former colleague died peacefully at age 89 on October 20th 2015 at his home in Rochester, Minnesota. Bud he had an incredibly positive impact on the medical school, the University Hospital and the campus during his relatively long tenure as Dean. Recruited here from Mayo Medical School by Chancellor Irving Shain, Bud brought an international reputation as a cancer researcher with a deep commitment to high-quality patient care and a track record as an outstanding teacher. He in fact embodied the three-legged stool of excellence in care, teaching and research needed for every successful medical school. He often emphasized that teaching is inseparable from learning and believed that our best researchers should strive to become our best teachers. During his years here, Bud and Irv Shain became close friends and colleagues as the medical school increased its engagement in campus-wide programs. Dean Brown arrived here during a period of transitional turmoil for the school. UW Hospital and Clinics moved to the West Campus on March 31, 1979 along with most of the clinical departments. Being geographically divided was a difficult leadership challenge for Dean Brown, but he managed it well as a balanced leader who stayed well-connected with faculty and with students. Bud also became famous here for emphasizing faculty governance while recruiting the mentoring Departmental Chairs and center directors. I and the other members of the Memorial Committee, that is, Dean Richard Moss and former Provost Paul DeLuca were all appointed as Department Chairs by Dean Brown. And it's safe to say that our post-chair leadership roles developed in large measure because of Bud's mentorship, and all three of us are very grateful for his guidance. Finally, under Dean Brown's leadership the school clearly developed greater excellence as a balanced institution, and perhaps most importantly our basic and clinical research programs expanded in quantity and quality predominately with extramural funding. As a Dean, Bud Brown was undoubtedly a game changer. For his great accomplishments, we celebrate the memory of Dean Arnold Brown and his many contributions to UW Madison. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> And I should note that our former Provost Deluca and our Associate Dean Rick Moss are both here also and in honor of Dean Brown. Let me recognize Professor Irwin Goldman to present the memorial resolution for Professor Emeritus Lloyd Peterson. >> Lloyd Peterson passed away at age eighty-five on March 25th 2016 surrounded by his family. Lloyd grew up on a farm in Oberon, North Dakota, received his PhD in soil science from UW Madison. Lloyd also served for thirty years in the US Army's 11th Airborne Division, retiring as a Colonel. He married his wife Arlene who is with us here today at Fort Campbell, Kentucky in 1953. Lloyd joined the Faculty in the Department of Horticulture in 1958, focusing his work on soil fertility, plant nutrition and the development of new micro-propagation techniques. He was well-known for his long-term crop-fertility studies in South-central Wisconsin. His work demonstrated how nitrogen, nitrogen fertilizer led to soil acidification, an important finding for the development of soil management recommendations. He also made outstanding contributions to understanding cranbury production in the state. His infectious enthusiasm for horticultural education and his encouragement of students to pursue the discipline and to get excited about plant science was legendary. >> Thank you Irwin. And I want to recognize his wife Arlene Peterson who's up here, together with both his daughters Lisa and Cindy. Thank you for coming. [ Applause ] That concludes the memorial resolutions and you may all be seated. And those of you who don't want to stay for the rest of the meeting are excused. It's been a busy and eventful month since we last met in early November, and I've got a number of topics that I want to run through today and just say a few words about. So let me just go through those one by one and then we'll see if the UC has anything to say and then take some questions. I'm sure that you were all as disappointed as I was with the news that UW dropped out of the top five in federal research rankings for the first time in more than four decades. Our 2015 expenditures topped $1 billion again, but they were down 40 million from the previous year, and two schools moved ahead of us. This was not a surprise. Vice Chancellor Marcia Malic and I have been tracking this for several years, and our research expenditures over the last decade have grown more slowly than those of our near peer schools. Obviously, you're going to start falling in the rankings when that happens. The two primary reasons for that. First, because of tight budgets, we've not been investing in the research areas as heavily as some of our peers. As you all know, the scientific world is constantly changing, and to stay abreast of that requires constant new investment and good judgment about where those investments go. That is one reason why Vice Chancellor Malic has launched the UW 2020 program, a major effort to see new cross-disciplinary projects that promise to grow into areas that can contract substantially, attract substantial new research dollars. Second, although we have done a very good job of retaining faculty in the face of the raids that we've had, we have still lost a small number of very top faculty. And due to budget cuts, we've not been hiring as much as some of our peers to replace those losses. As you all know, some of our best faculty literally bring in millions of dollars in research and their loss affects our research performance. I am very determined to make this an anomaly and not a trend. It's one reason we're looking at new investments, one reason we launched UW 2020, one reason we are putting substantial funding into retaining and paying compensation for faculty who might be at risk of leaving. But let me be clear. As I've said many times, the extensive budget cuts that UW Madison has experienced over the past decade have had consequences and our decline in the research rankings is one of them. Money alone can't build a great university. You also need judgment and vision and really good people out there in the faculty and the staff ranks who know how to spend the funds most effectively. But we must reinvest in this University if we are to retain our national standing. Let me turn to post-tenure review. As you all know, we passed a post-tenure review policy last month. I had thought we were sending this to the Board of Regents at their meeting later this, but it turns out we are not. They've asked us to hold our policy, in part because there are some changes that they are making to the Board of Regents policy around post-tenure review they adopted last March. Those changes are primarily focused on how Deans do a review of post-tenure reports that come into them, and they explicitly want the Deans to review both positive and negative reports and have the ability to commission second reviews in either of those cases if they have any concerns about that first round. They're going to be adopting revised language and we may well have to come back to the faculty here to make some what I hope are going to be relatively small changes in our language to then be consistent with the new regent language. There are a few policies that are going forward. There were other policies including our own that we're asked to hold until this new language is adopted. There is a threat here that I will note, that the Regents have said that if they do not receive a new policy as of April, they have a policy that will be put in place automatically if they have not approved a new policy for any of the schools in the system, and I can promise you that's not a policy we want. The extended nature of this whole discussion, I must say, I find somewhat frustrating, but I think we are at least iterating closer to a resolution and I hope that with the Board of Regents action this month, we will be able to complete this conversation in the next few months. Anyway, stay tuned, that is what's happening on that front. Thirdly, tuition. Among the issues that the Board of Regents will be dealing with on Thursday is a tuition request that we have in front of them. As you all know, in-state residential undergraduates are frozen, that remains unchanged. Two years ago I went to the Board of Regents and asked for some increases in out-of-state undergraduate tuition as well as a variety of increases in professional school tuition where we were very far below our peers. The Regents were sympathetic to that request but did not want to tie Board of Regents too far out into the future. So they gave me two years of my request and said come back for the second two years. I'm now coming back for the second two years and I should note that there are number of other schools also coming back for some similar tuition increases as well elsewhere around the system. For in-state undergraduates, I'm simply completing the four-year request as we laid it out two years ago. I've signaled this multiple times that I was going to come back for those second two years. And for the professional schools, this is largely also the completion of what we put out there. There's some tweaks, there's a few small differences in what some of the schools are asking, but it doesn't look very different. We all know as I've noted, the budget realities that we're facing. The cost of operating a world-class teaching and research institution continues to rise. Our in-state tuition has been frozen for four years, is likely to be frozen for at least one more year, and at the same time state support has fallen. In the midst of this, tuition increases are necessary and I might say for our professional schools in particular given where they sit relative to their peers and I invite you to look at that difference if any of you who are in those schools, you know, we need to be competitive in our tuition, what we ask people to pay, and I think none of these requests are in any way outside what is reasonable. I have more of this in the blog that is being posted, I don't know if it's this afternoon or tomorrow morning at chancellor.wis.edu, and we will if this is adopted be sending communications to our students and our parents both in the professional schools as well as among our out-of-state students. Next, let me turn to the question of undocumented students here on campus. There is a great deal of concern about future federal policies that affect our immigrant students and particularly any undocumented students on campus. There is also concern about potential changes in our ability to attract international students to UW Madison and indeed to all US schools, and those concerns, I might note, are not just student-focused but obviously also affect staff, faculty and their family members. I absolutely recognize the concerns of students and the community around these issues. I've met with a group of faculty students and staff to discuss what we can and we cannot do in UW Madison policy to reassure students that this is a safe campus for them to attend. I support the continuation of what's called the Dreamers Act which gives undocumented students access to college without threat of deportation, and pledge to protect our students to the full extent that the law allows. Along with hundreds of presidents and chancellors across the country, I recently signed a letter supporting DOCA the Dreamers' Act and our undocumented immigrant students. And I know that you're going to address this in a resolution later today which I'm pleased with. I should say that we are trying to creed a set of statements about what we can do around this issue which I hope to be clarifying in the very near future. I should note the University of Wisconsin Police Department, nor does our admissions office, routinely gather information about the immigration status of whether our students are undocumented or not. We simply do not have that information unless a student has revealed it in some way to us. Similarly, the Police Department does not collect information about citizenship or immigrant status of people who have interactions with the police, and we have no plans to change that policy. The Madison Police Department has a similar practice and as I say, I hope to say more about what it is we can and cannot do to protect undocumented students in the near future. As you know, some have called upon UW Madison to declare itself a sanctuary campus. I do not have the independent authority to make such a declaration. I have to operate the University within the limits of applicable federal and state laws and within the policies and guidelines established by the Board of Regents. I do hope that there may be some closely affiliated organizations that sit very close to this campus that are able to declare themselves sanctuaries, and particularly organizations associated with some of our religious communities who can declare their, you know, religious function as embodying the providing of sanctuary in a way that I as a state agency do not have the opportunity to do. So we will see where this issue evolves as policy moves forward. Let me move to the issue of compensation. Also in the Board of Regents Agenda Thursday, is a request for a pay plan to the governor and the legislature for both our staff and our faculty, a two percent increase across the board in each of the next two years. And that is, you know, a long, long overdue request and one that I very much hope the governor and the legislature will look kindly upon. We've not been able to give meaningful across-the-board increases to faculty and academic staff for some period of time. The last three biennial budgets only provided a 1 percent general wage increase in two of the last six years for our faculty and staff. At the same time the average increase for all public universities was 10 percent during those same six years. Over this time, as you all know, benefit cost to our employees have also risen substantially due to mandated increases in employee contributions, and that means that the take-home pay, particular of a number of our staff is lower now than it was five and six years ago. That's led to challenges in recruitment and retention and even though this is a modest pay plan, 2 percent and 2 percent, it is an absolutely necessary step and one in the right direction and one that we certainly intend to support as strongly as possible with the governor and the legislature that I know PROFS is going to support. And I hope that all of you with any knowledge or ability to do any lobbying or communication with public officials will do so as well. Let me also talk a bit about the issue of Fair Labor Standards Law, something some of you may not know too much about but is a hot topic right now. As you know, a federal judge blocked the expansion of overtime pay to employees at higher income levels. We were going to on December 1st, be asked to implement a process whereby the dollar amount at which employees were covered by overtime and rather than being salaried employees, had to keep timesheets and were then eligible for overtime if they went over forty hours, went from I think around 23,000 up to around 46 or 47,000. And we were going to be converting quite a few employees to overtime pay as a result of that, and there were some employees and in certain types of jobs close to that new threshold whose pay we were going to be increasing. A federal judge has put this entire federal proposal on hold and we do not therefore have the statutory authority to implement it. We'll be not in the least, in the near future, until this court case is settled and it's clear where this goes, we'll not be moving any new people into overtime hours and we will not be raising pay because I do not have the authority to raise pay with the absence of FLSA regulations for this specific reason. Now, all of those employees who might otherwise have received a pay raise under FLSA are nonetheless eligible for merit and market and, you know, all of the regular pay increases that departments across the University are evaluating their employees for. But we will be closely monitoring the court case and will provide future updates to everyone as it becomes clear what's happening there. Finally, I want to end with just a little bit of good news. On February 1st, we have a new Director of the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery, Joe Handelsman. I know many of you know Joe. She was on campus here for quite a while. She was one of those top faculty who we lost to Yale, and while at Yale went down to the Office of Science and Technology in the White House and has been there for a number of years just doing great work on national science policy and she will be returning to campus to head WID which is just wonderful news for, I think for all of us. Five of our faculty members have been elected as Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society. This includes David Brow, Professor of Bio Molecular Biochemistry in the School of Medicine and Public Health, Hannah Carey Professor of Comparative Biosciences in the School of Veterinary Medicine, Ann Palmenberg Professor of Biochemistry, Susana Stanimorkovic. I think I have that right, Professor of Astronomy and John Valley, Professor of Geoscience. So if you run into any of those colleagues, be sure to congratulate them. And finally, I will note that one of our recent grads Brian Drout from Wales, Wisconsin has been named a Schwartzman scholar. The Schwartzman scholars are an effort to basically duplicate the road scholars except go into Asian universities and particularly Chinese universities. So Brian, this is a place that received 2747 applicants from 119 countries. Brian was one of the 129 students selected. He graduated from here with a degree in political science and a certificate in environmental science and he'll be spending a year at Tsinghua University in Beijing China. So lots of good things always continue to happen around campus and I always want to remind people of that. That is my list of announcements. Amy, do you have anything that you want to say? Alright. Are there any questions before we move on with our agenda? Okay. I'm sure that's a record [laughter]. If you move to your minutes, Agenda pages seven and eight. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes of the meetings of November 7th? If there are none, the minutes are approved as distributed. Let me recognize Professor Laurel Rice who's going to present the Annual Report of the Athletic Board. I should note, you have multiple Annual Reports from the Athletic Board because for reasons that I do not fully understand you have not received one for several years, and Laurel will report on this year. Laurel. >> Thank you. Good afternoon. As Chancellor Blank mentioned, I took over this position in July of 2016, so I will be reporting on the fifteen, sixteen Annual Report but happy to take questions on the previous years. The Athletic Board has twenty-three members including faculty, alumni academic staff, University staff and students. The work is carried out by four committees. The first is equity, diversity and student welfare guided by campus values title nine. The primary role for this committee is to enhance student welfare. Second committee is academics and compliance. Prioritizing academics is the obvious important point in this committee and we also want to be compliant. Personnel, we focus on coach evaluations and as well we participate in hiring head coaches. And finally, the finance committee budgetary oversight, always important. Matt, can I have the first slide please? So once a year the Wall Street Journal publishes this graph. It's football teams all over the United States, and on the y-axis we have admirability or embarrassment and on the other axis we have athletic prowess. I've been looking at this for years ever since I've come to Wisconsin. Wisconsin is always right there at the top with admirability. We kind of fluctuate on athletic performance, but I would say that academics is more important than athletic performance. >> I've got to say something. >> Yeah, okay. >> This was done at the beginning of the year given our football team ranking at that moment in time. If you actually put in our actual football team ranking as number eight in the nation at the end of the season, we'd be right up there in the upper right hand quadrant, so [laughter]. >> And I love the fact that the Chancellor knows that. Is she driven by data or what? Okay. So four of our top priorities are first of all academic performance. The GPA for our student appellees which is about 150 for the spring semester was 3.06, and eight teams had record high GPAs and during this same time period. Now, 279 students on the Dean's list, Dean's honor list, Dean's high honors list in the same time period, 203 students were named academic all-conference. The graduation success rate. There's three ways to look at this data. The graduation success rate I think is the most robust. It's a six-year rate for each freshman cohort. It includes students who transfer in and who transfer out, who graduate. Ours is 86 percent percent. That's exactly what all, that's the mean for Division One schools. Financial responsibility. Twenty-four out of 126 FBS schools operate in the black, we are one of them. This year the Athletics sent $5 million to campus and that's after tuition remission, paying for meals, full cost of attendance, and that's noteworthy. Compliance. There's been no major infractions in fifteen years. There are minor infractions, about twenty-two to twenty-three per year. I have to sign off on every one of them. They all involve social media. There's a reason why we should not be tweeting [laughter]. I want to say more, I'm going to hold back [laughter]. Athletic Performance. Littlefield sports directors cup, aggregate of all sports, men and women, were twenty-six out of 289, women's hockey, women's volleyball, men's football. Good. Now I'm happy to take questions about this year's report or the previous two. >> Mark Hansel, district 11. So, I'm really proud of the Wisconsin sports program, you know, and we, I think we, admiration ranking, you know, I think is been there for a long time and we're a shining light in the United States on that. And so I'm proud of that program and the away it's been administered. One thing that I've noticed is this balance between academics and sports and students. And if I look at say the women's teams, many of whom have won national championships, a lot of those students are not as fully funded as the men's programs which are the big money-makers like football and maybe basketball. And I was wandering how you, could you explain to me how you balance the money to recognize sports programs like the women's program that don't bring in a lot of money but a lot of those athletes are truly scholar athletes with outstanding academic GPAs in very hard programs, but they are in programs that aren't well-funded. There has to be some kind of sharing and redistribution of wealth in order to reward that, and I was wondering if you could explain that process. >> Wow. Okay. There is, the question you bring up is a really good one, and there is not an exact formula for that. A lot of attention is paid to that particularly as it relates to gender equity, but there's no doubt that it's a balance, and to give you an exact formula, I cannot. I can say that I along with the other Board members have looked at this on a regular basis and feel that we're in the sweet spot, but I can get you more data on that if you'd like. >> Can I say something? >> Yep. >> The number of scholarships that we give for each sport is actually regulated by the NCAA, and we're given a certain number of scholarships in each sport and it's higher in the moneymaking sports than in others. So we do not have control over how many scholarships we offer for many of those other programs. >> Well that makes it easy. Sorry I didn't have an answer for you. Any other questions? Yep. >> Yeah, Don Wiebe, Pathology Laboratory in Madison. Looking at your revenue stuff and expenses and all that, page fourteen shows for 2011 through twelve, twelve through thirteen, thirteen through fourteen, and I find it interesting that operating margins look like they match and then the ending balance of cash that you have, and the 375 at the end of 2012 and you loss 5000 comes close to the 361. Not bad. And then you got the 271 for 2014, you went up to 640. Again, really respectable. Now, I'm trying to look on page twenty and at the bottom you got the 640, but now on 2014 fifteen, you made 127 but that 640 disappeared. >> Can we have that [inaudible]. >> Yeah, I'm not [inaudible]. On page twenty I'm not seeing a table. This might be one that you should take up afterwards. I would tell you what I think the answer is but I could be wrong without looking at this in more detail, that the Athletics Department raises large amounts of money because they also self-fund many of their facilities and they have some facility reconstruction going on, and my guess is that's what's the difference is there. >> It just looked strange when I first looked at. >> Yep. Capital expenses. Thank you. Anyone else? Oh, here we go. >> When I played high school football [inaudible]. John Sharpless, History Department, District 6C. I'd get knocked out regularly and the cure for that was to get kicked in the ribs and told to get up and run it out. Fortunately, we've come a long ways on that, and we've discovered not only in football but in hockey, and soccer and wrestling and a number of other sports, it's a serious concern. What are we doing as a flagship campus to try to deal with this long-run problem that seems to plague young athletes well into life. >> Are you speaking specifically about concussions? Yeah. So UW led the charge in pushing for policy around concussion prevention and treatment. Dr Nora Foss was on the athletic board when that policy was adopted. He played a pivotal role and we're one of four institutions that are looking at this from a research perspective. So I think UW should feel good about the role that we've played in this concussion policy. It's solid, we have to sign off on it. There's a lot of attention paid to it. I think it's good. >> I also want to say something I'm very proud of, that a number of our coaches have been explicitly working with high school coaches in high school camps to change the way in which high school coaches are coaching around these issues and what they're doing with their students, because that's just as important as when they cross over into college. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you very much Laurel. >> Let me recognize Professor Tom Dubois who will present the Annual Report of the University Lectures Committee. Tom. >> Hello. I'm very glad to be here. The Lectures Committee is one of the sources of a lot of creative and exciting events on our campus as you all know. When you're able to bring a lecturer to work with students or to speak with your faculty, it makes a huge difference in many, many ways. The Annual Report that we've put together will tell you about how we've been spending this money. We've noticed a moderate decline in the number of applications, so I very much urge you to talk to your units and to send us some speakers. The process is very, very straightforward. You put in that application by the 15th of the month, you get an answer by the first week of the following month, and we tend to respect the decisions of our expert colleagues across the campus. So the only real questions we ask is if you're going to be asking more than $600. Giving more than $600 as an honorarium, we want to understand why, and then there's certain regulations about hotel and so forth. The process is straightforward. There's also something that we've been trying to develop, and that's live captioning. This can be a very important way to make a talk more accessible. And we have an option, we will help you with that. But please think about whether you'd like your talk to be live captioned. There are certain rooms on campus that can accommodate that. And finally, I wanted to mention the Fitch Memorial. William K Fitch gave a very generous bequest many years ago "to bring to Madison prominent business people, to give lectures on the American free enterprise system." Perhaps because that sounds a little old-fashioned in its wording, the bequest is pretty old, people haven't been giving us requests in that area. But if you think about your work with alumni and if you have a talented alum who's been an entrepreneur or a business leader and you want to bring him to campus or her to campus to talk to your students, that's a perfect use of this funding. So what we've trying to do in order to urge you to think about giving us requests in the Fitch area are two things. One is that, you can have a Fitch speaker in addition to the allotment that you usually get for your unit of one speaker per semester. So the Fitch will not count against that allotment. And second, we're taking the ceiling off the kind of ipso facto about $1000 top there. So if you need to get Bill Gates to come [laughter] for a lot of money, you know, give us a proposal. So there's something about that on secretary of the faculty website. There's a deadline of the end of January, I believe, but anytime you do that proposal for a lecturer you can always check the Fitch fund box and then we'll consider it for that. I'd like to thank Jamie Adcock and Steve Smith for all their work on this committee. They make it workable and feasible for us who are part of that committee. It's very enjoyable and it's very, very exciting to hear about all the wonderful talks and events that happen on our campus every day. It's one of the things that makes this such a great institution. Thank you. I really want to give this door close at all possible okay Any questions? Hearing none, happy holidays [laughter]. >> And thank you Tom for your work. Let me recognize Professor Judith Burstyn who'll present the Annual Report of PROFS. Judith. >> So good afternoon. I'm here to report on behalf of PROFS, your lobbying organization, and I've also been deputized. To tell you, that, should you decide to join PROFS, you get your own PROFS mug and there is a little form if you would like to fill it out to join PROFS. There is a small dues fee and the details are on the little form. So in the past year PROFS does what it's always does, which is lobby on your behalf, on behalf of the Senate and PROFS Board of Directors is the University Committee, and then we are run by a Steering Committee. Should any of you be interested in becoming part of the Steering Committee and getting active in lobbying at the state or federal level, let us know. The PROFS is a membership organization and our membership has held very steady over the course of time. Approximately half the faculty are members and we gain members each year as individuals leave the university or retire. Some of the things that we've done, we will as the Chancellor noted be lobbying on behalf of the compensation exercise that the Regents will be putting forward on behalf of the budget for the University. In recent years, I just want to remind you that in 2011 when Act 10 went forward and there was increased contributions to retirement savings, one of the things we noted was that the original legislation did not have that as pre-tax. It was post tax and we argued in favor of it being pre-tax which saves everyone of you about $1800 a year. We worked very hard on the enactment of domestic partner benefits and also first-day health insurance coverage for our faculty and staff. Some of the things that we always work on, the budget is coming up, we will be actively working on the budget. We are very concerned right now about two different areas, and should any of you be interested in these areas one of them is the potential restrictions on research with fetal cells, and this is a significant issue for our campus and we continue to lobby and work with the Chancellor's office in this area. We also are working with the Chancellor's office, the students and many other people on the issue of campus carry which we believe is also going to come back. So should any of you be interested in that please let us know. Some of the things that, additional things that we did in the past year, we had a forum on self-insurance, very well attended and obviously self-insurance is something that is currently under discussion at the state level, whether the state health insurance system should be self-financed. We also worked with the students on voter ID and with the Chancellor's office so that the students were able to get on our campus a voter ID, and we sponsored a variety of other activities. Should you be interested, all the details are here and we encourage you to join and get involved in PROFS. Are there questions here? Oh yes, and are there questions. >> Mark Hansel, District 11. So, I'm a little bit, very concerned about this campus carry legislation that's coming up. You know, I can imagine that I'm standing in a classroom of 100 students and each one has a loaded Glock in their pocket, and one of them decides to act up and the police show up and the police are like, who's the bad guy here? -- because a hundred students could have a gun in the class. Or I give an exam, one of the students has exam anxiety and at the end of the exam, they feel like they really blew it on this exam and they kind of lose it a little bit. It does, you know, to me this is a scary situation for the police to have to respond to emergencies, for the professors that are up trying to control the classroom, and for the children of all of the parents in the state who have their kids in a classroom where people can just have a loaded gun. And so to me, that's a big issue of safety on campus. We're going to have that come up and I was wondering what your thoughts were on how we can prevent having everybody with a gun in their pocket during class. >> So this is a huge issue and I think you named the concern of everyone. One of the things that the PROFS Steering Committee has talked about, we believe that it's extremely important to work with the students on this issue because our students represent all the different, are represented by legislators from all the different districts in the state, and it's extremely important for legislators to hear, as many legislators as possible, to hear from their constituents. And since the constituents are the state residents, I feel like the students have a very important role to play here and in fact, we're initiating conversations with the students to help them. They are having a day of action which I believe is, I'm not going to remember the date, December 15th, and they also have initiated a Facebook page. We have a link on the PROFS website to, we will have a link on PROFS website page to their initiative, and I think that, that is one way. The most important thing is to reach as many legislators as possible. >> We would also expect to reach out to parents who I think are just as effective as students on speaking on this issue. >> And actually that, I should say, is to hear from the students' parents because the students' parent should be tremendously concerned about this, and as should all of we, all of us. Last year it came to pass that this legislation got buried in committee. And it looks a little less likely but still possible that, that could happen this year. >> Other questions? Thank you Judith and thanks to everyone who works with PROFS. Let me recognize Patrick Sheehan, Director of Workforce Relations, who'll present the Minor Protection and Adult Leadership Policy. Patrick. >> Thank you Chancellor Blank. My name is Patrick Sheehan and I'm here on behalf of the Office of Human Resources to present to you the Minor Protection and Adult Leadership Policy, it's enclosed in your packets. A little bit of background on this policy. In May 2015, the UW system audit recommendation required that all UW system campus institutions develop and implement policies regarding the appropriate supervision of minors who are not enrolled or accepted for enrolment at a UW institution, who may be involved in university sponsored programs, programs held at the University by a written agreement, or sponsorship and our programs house and University facilities. So this draft policy identifies the minimum standards of supervision related to minors who participate in programs sponsored by or associated with the University. I've discussed this policy with the academic staff assembly as well as their executive committee, the University Staff Executive Committee and is going to the University Staff Congress. I've also discussed this I believe on two occasions with the UC, the University Committee as well to walk through the policy and its supplementation and any questions that that may exist. It's important to recognize this policy largely documents existing practices that are in place across campus. There are a number of state statutes and policies regarding minors who may be enrolled in camps or overnight camps on University Campuses across the state. And so a large of this policy is really reflecting those statutory provisions. This policy importantly does not apply to minors who are employees, who are enrolled as students, are attending public events in public locations, who are attending private events under parental supervision or participants in IRB covered research. Outside organizations who'll utilize our facilities will be expected to adhere to the provisions of this policy and language is anticipated to be placed in upcoming facilities use agreements to outline these expectations. So, really, the policy itself is quite brief and the policy detail indicates that one-on-one contact between adults and minors is not permitted. There are a few exceptions to this that we've discussed at length with UW system as well as with our attorneys here on campus, the exceptions including instructional and research settings, including tutoring or perhaps musical instruction, activities which would be fundamentally altered if there were not conducted in one-on-one settings such as advising. And then with the limited exceptions that can be granted by the Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources or the Director of Risk Management, and that would be really taken on a case-by-case basis. So with that, I'd like to take the opportunity to field in any questions you may have about this policy or any concerns. >> Gentlemen on gold brick, District 71. I do have one question. So, under consequences for non-compliance, the document says university employees who violate this policy may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment. I presume that faculty members who are charged with actions that could lead to discipline or dismissal would continue to be entitled throughout the proceedings to due process as delineated in FPP, chapter 9 and UWS 4. Am I presuming correctly? >> That is correct. >> Mind I suggest that maybe this is not necessary but I think would be nice if this was made explicit in the document itself, if a few lines could be added about that. >> I believe that's been in other policies as well we've highlighted that you would be subject to the disciplinary process in accordance with the applicable policies and procedures and I think that, that's a friendly amendment I could make. >> Any other questions? Thank you Patrick. Oh, one here. Chris. >> Chris Walker I believe, District 33. In the adult-to-student ratio section of the document, it goes up to age 12, which leaves out our entire pre-college population. I'm wondering if there is recommendation. >> Those are actually grade groups rather than ages. >> Ooh, thank you. >> So that's through grade twelve. And that's an area we've had some conversation about whether those should be ages or grade groups, but, yeah. >> Thank you. >> No problem. >> Right, put that on. Thank you. >> Meagan Virago [assumed spelling], Environmental Engineering. I have a child who goes to preschool here and my question is, how will you change this policy if campus carry comes to pass, if we're talking about child safety? >> Really, I think that it'll fall outside the provisions of this policy which is really about largely those ratios and under what circumstances it is acceptable for an minor to be one-on-one. Great. Thank you. >> Hi, Lisa Everett, District 67. I just wanted to ask since you're here. If you have an event and you're inviting students from other campuses, if a student's under eighteen but they're enrolled as a college student, do they sort of fit into this minor policy with the risk management or are they sort of presumed to be their own institution's responsibility? >> So, the policy indicates that they would not be enrolled at any UW institution, so it would not, that would not. >> Not any UW, but suppose some other college or something. Is it generally true that they're not, are, I mean, somebody, if they're a minor, somebody has to be legally responsible I'm presuming. The question is, is it us or is it somebody else? >> I think that, that's a question I'd really punt to the risk management director. I'll be asking him some more questions about that, that's particularly nuance but I really would anticipate that, that group should not be covered by this policy. >> Alright. Thank you. >> Chris Walker again, 33. Same group, so I guess it's grades nine through twelve. The recommendation is one adult to eighteen students and for young people in studio practice, for example dance or other physical practice where you may have thirty or so students in the studio together. Is this suggestion that we have to have, how do we go about working that out with this sort of structure? >> I really think the expectation is that it would not be beneath that threshold but to exceed it, sort of have, well. So that is anticipated having more multiple people for a group of that size, and so there wouldn't, probably need be some discussions around staffing for those programs. And that's where most of the conversations surrounding this policy has occurred [inaudible]. >> I understand that but this is the classroom so I suspect that the conversation that arrived at these numbers was related to a classroom like this. I'm talking about learning spaces that looks differently, feel differently, and performs differently than a classroom, and I'm asking if in that dialogue if those spaces were considered. I'm representing dance and we, and this immediately impacts a pre-college event and our upcoming high school dance festival where we do have up to thirty, eighteen, seventeen, sixteen year olds in a studio together. So I'm just wondering if there is a way to come back to this or how we deal with that. >> Yeah. So these, this appendix which are the ratios, these are vastly based on state statutes, statutory provisions, and that's where these definitions and these ratios have been pulled from. And so I think there may be some conversation about which group, dance instruction for example, should fall under, and there can be additional conversation about this and how that would apply to that particular setting. >> Okay, thank you. >> I'll reach out to you, thank you. >> I would assume that any teaching situation with a large group of people and a teacher is a classroom, even if it doesn't look like this classroom. I think that would be the standard assumption. >> It could be but even here on campus, we go to a live studio. >> Yeah. Thank you Patrick. Let me recognize Assistant Professor Andrea Ruppar who will introduce a resolution in solidarity with students, staff and faculty experiencing discrimination. >> I was not the author of this particular resolution so I move approval of faculty document 2659, a resolution on solidarity with students, staff and faculty experiencing discrimination. This resolution. >> Let me get a second part before you say more. >> Second >> Okay. This resolution was authored by my colleague Professor David Rosenthal from my department. So I'll hand over the floor to Professor Rosenthal for questions. >> Thank you Professor Ruppar. I David Rosenthal, District. >> 26. >> 26. I had a statement prepared but I think the resolution, and it speaks for itself, and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Are there questions? >> Not sure this is the right time. I don't have a question but I do have an amendment I would like to move. Oh, sorry, Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. >> Go ahead. >> So, I want to say that I want to preface this by saying I'm strongly supportive of the spirit of this resolution. I think it does something very valuable and important. Somebody who comes from an ethno-religious minority background myself, I understand the need for this. However, I am concerned about the precise language in the resolution that mixes together persons and ideas, and I think it's absolutely vital that we stand against discrimination against persons. I think ideas need to be treated somewhat separately. I don't think that we have an obligation to value any idea, even a religiously-based or religiously-grounded idea as such and I think its value has to be tested. The value of any idea has to be tested through sifting and winnowing and I think that, that needs to be made clear in a resolution. So to make that clear, the amendment that I would like to move, I move that the last two sentences in the second paragraph be struck and instead, a new sentence be substituted there. We value these groups for what they contribute to the university community. And the other change that I would move to make here is that in the second whereas clause, to strike different and substitute diversity of. >> Is there a second to that amendment? Alright, we are now open to the floor for discussion of the amendment only. Is the discussion on the amendment? Yeah, let's get it out of here. The second whereas change the word that the different beliefs to the diversity of beliefs. >> Yes, so the first change is to strike the last two sentences of the second paragraph and to substitute instead, the sentence "we value these groups for what they contribute to the university community." And the other change is to strike the word "different" in the second whereas clause and to substitute the words diversity of. >> Alright, you all see the changes. >> So the phrase in italics would be struck. >> The italics go away and the other line phrase replaces it. That's the proposed amendment. Are there comments, questions, discussion of the amendment only? >> Barbara Bowers, one of the members of the university committee. We had talked about the sentence that you suggested adding "we value them for their contribution" and decided that valuing people only for their contribution was more limited than we wanted to support, that we value these people of different groups. So we had actually discussed this and decided not to include for their contribution [background conversation]. >> May I respond to that? >> Yeah. >> Chad Alan Goldberg, District 71. So I don't think the amendment that I have proposed actually changes the gist here because the wording as it currently stands without the amendment, values people for contributions just as we value professors for what they contribute to the university community. So the amendment doesn't change that aspect of the resolution. What the resolution already does is to value people for what they contribute to the community. >> Christelle Olsen, district 55. I think this problem could be followed by an amendment to the amendment that changed "for" to "and." We value these groups and what they contribute to the university committee that takes care of the problem of reducing people to their contribution. >> Is that a proposed amendment to the amendment? >> It is an. >> Is there a second to that? You want to put that up? Alright, is there any discussion on the inclusion of the word "and" for "for?" If not, let's vote on that amendment. All those in favor indicate by saying "aye." >> Aye. >> Are there any opposed? We are now back to the original amendment as amended to include "and" for " for." Is there any further discussion on that amendment? If not, we will vote. All those in favor of the amendment is presented up there, indicate by saying "aye." >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Alright, we now have an amended resolution in front of us. We're back to discussion of that resolution. Is there any further discussion? If not --. >> Carmen Valdes, district 32. My question is more about how the resolution begins by stating that individuals experience discrimination based on ethnicity, of race, etcetera, etcetera. But then the remaining focus is on Islamaphobia and I'm just wondering why not include all of those different groups or whether there's a resolution being planned for other groups if there are many that are experiencing? >> There were quite a few iterations of this resolution and it was broadened several times and the broadening was in the preamble and then we were considering having additional whereases to cover other potentially-targeted groups in terms of discrimination. So there was quite a few iterations and it was the last iteration that kind of returned it to the specificity in terms of islam and muslims that it is in the current form. So I personally as author prefer the specificity but it was wrestled with in terms of this topic. Dena Bart, District 7, yes I understand the specificity here, but it's not just Muslims who have faced these incidents and to just focus on the Islamic community as that might be, denies that other groups have been targeted here. >> Amy. >> I'd like to just make a comment about the iterations of this statement. Oh! Amy Wen, University Committee, Electrical engineering, I don't know my district number. I'd like to make a comment about the discussions about this resolution and the iterations that it went through. Professor Rosenthal referred to coming back to a narrower scope, focusing on Islam and one of the reasons for that return to a more focused statement was that when an attempt was made to list various other groups who have been discriminated against, we realized that it was impossible to list every group. So rather than list some and omit some, we kept the explicit comments strictly to the Islamic community. >> Is there other discussion? If not, if you ready to vote on the amended motion, all those in favor of the resolution is amended, indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> All those opposed -- the ayes have it and the resolution passes, thank you very much. Let me now recognize assistant Professor Jerome Camal will present a resolution on undocumented students. >> I move the adoption of the Faculty document 2660, Resolution in support of undocumented students with a small correction to the wording of the first whereas clause, I think we have it on the screen so you can see the correction there. >> Is there a second to that motion? >> Second. >> Alright, you want to say more? >> I bring this resolution to you as representative of the Department of Anthropology and as the Department's Diversity and Inclusion Liaison, the idea for this motion originally came from our Emeritus colleague Frank Solomon, who emailed my colleague Amy Steinbach and myself a while back after the election. We then worked with the language that Frank offered us and with the university committee, will help us further strengthen our proposal. Judging by the large support for the petition to demand that our campus becomes a sanctuary for undocumented students and their families, some of you may think that the language in this resolution doesn't go far enough. Amy and I have tried to craft a resolution that expresses our collective support for our undocumented and documented students, while also remaining aware of the inherent legal limitation on what we as a faculty can resolve to do. Certainly, we welcome your comments and any potential amendments that could strengthen this resolution. >> Further comments, questions. >> Mark Hansel [assumed spelling], district 11. So this resolution you know, in support of that which could be, we don't have any control over whether that's deleted from law. I think it's wimpy and this idea that somehow we can't declare this campus a sanctuary campus is wimpy, yeah. We can't defy federal law but the University of California has come up with another way around that. Instead of declaring their campuses as sanctuary campuses, they've come up with a list of things that they won't do, and I'd like to read what those are, and I'd like to offer an amendment to your resolution. And my amendment is that the very last, at the end, to add this wording, which is based on the University of California language. Therefore be it resolved that the UW Madison Faculty call on the UW Madison administration 2, and I have a numbered list, not release immigration status or related information and confidential student records without permission from a student to federal agencies or other parties without a judicial warrant. I have a copy for you right here if you'd like it. Okay. So number one is not release immigration status or related information and confidential student records without permission from a student to federal agencies or to other parties without a judicial warrant, or subpoena or court order, orders or as required by law. To forbid campus police from joining those state and local law enforcement agencies that enter into an agreement with immigration and customs enforcement, or undertake other joint efforts with federal state or local law enforcement agencies to investigate, detain or rest individuals for violation of federal immigration law. Three, forbid Campus Police from contacting, detaining, questioning, or arresting individual solely on the basis of suspected undocumented immigration status or to discover the immigration status of an individual except as required by law. Four, forbid campus police officers from detaining an individual in response to an immigration hold request from the immigration and customs enforcement or any other law enforcement agency enforcing federal immigration law, unless doing so as required by law, or unless an individual has been convicted of a serious or violent felony. And then lastly five, not provide information for any federal effort to create a registry based on any protected characteristics such as religion, national origin, race or sexual orientation. That's my proposed amendment to your resolution. It has teeth, it's not wimpy. >> Is there a second to the amendment? I think we should wait until we get this up in front of us and then we will have discussion on the amendment only. >> I have, I have a comment on the amendment that's not related to the substance of the amendment. So I would like to speak against the amendment for the following reason. The amendment as proposed, significantly expands the scope of the statement. It's adding additional material to the statement and I'd like to let you know is that the University Committee has become aware that there're conversations ongoing between groups on campus and the administration, and that there are clarifications that will be forthcoming after careful consideration of what the campus is legally permitted to commit to or not commit. >> I'd like to add to that and take probity of the Chair here. We are in the midst of conversations with a group of faculty, staff and students. We are trying to put together our statement within our laws here in Wisconsin and the province we have under the Board of Regions as to what we can and cannot do. And I would personally rather than seeing you look at specific language that came out of California, allow us the freedom to move that forward and to come back to you and you will hear about this Language in the next week or so. And if you are unhappy with that at that point, then you could come forward with it further resolution but tying our hands with California language, I think is not going to be overly helpful. >> John Sharpel, History Department, District 6. There's a long tradition in American history of resisting federal authority from the whiskey rebellion, they lost unfortunately. We pay taxes on whiskey all the way down to the recent protest by the Bundy brothers and the people who are fighting the pipeline in the Dakotas. To ask this campus to assume the position directly confrontational to the federal government carries with it enormous implications, and I hope you all have the courage to live with it. >> Lee Blesias, District 65, my worry about this amendment is that we might be providing a template to our legislature for exactly the laws that they will want to pass. >> Curt Paulson, District 76, This is more of a question which maybe can't be answered at this time, I don't know. Under Wisconsin law, if a student does not have formally a legally-documented status, they have to pay out-of-state tuition even if they graduated from a Wisconsin High School. So at some point in time in the enrollment or application process, citizenship determination is made, right? >> We ask whether people are, we do not collect or keep any information beyond people who register as international students from other countries. I do not know whether someone is an undocumented student unless they have self-revealed that to me. So if a student is undocumented and doesn't declare that on the admissions, there's no. >> We don't ask. >> Investigation. >> And if they don't tell, we don't know. >> And that's not recorded anywhere other than in admissions. >> So you mentioned that you're working. >> Identify yourself. >> Mark Hansel, District 11. So first of all, I think that this language doesn't have the word "California" in it. it's just language about what you will forbid the police department on campus which is under your power from doing. You will not provide this information without a warrant. You're not sating you won't ever do it. You're just saying that you're not just going to do it freely. You'll need, they'll need a subpoena or warrant. So I think it's also wimpy to dodge the bullet and say well, we don't want to use the California legislation. I don't mention California in here, the resolution as it's written now without this amendment, has no teeth. It's wimpy, it really doesn't say much and to me, it's kind of a shame if we're not willing to stand up and say no to a federal government that wants to take undocumented students and kick them out. >> John McKay, philosophy, I'm afraid I forgot the number. I just have a follow-up question to the question that's previous that because I didn't quite understand response. So I take it that there is a list of which students are in F1 status. Is that correct, and? >> F1 status being? >> Student visa, legal. >> Yes. >> International students' and then if undocumented student are also classified as >> We asked nobody about their undocumented status, that's not on the application form. We do not know unless they self- reveal. >> Are they identified as international students? >> No. They're identified by however they identify themselves assuming if they're not international students, of course, they would not have international passports or be entering. >> So they're just a class out-of-state that includes citizens from other states and undocumented. >> Sorry? >> They register in whatever way they wish to register. >> Do we have any Wisconsin resident? >> Who decides what tuition they pay? I don't understand that. >> They can pay whatever they wish but we simply do not ask. >> Oh I see. So if they self-report in violation of official. >> I know someone in the undocumented they must pay out-of-state tuition. >> Okay. I see what you mean, okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Javier Clairol, Music 65. Just referring to that, I would say it is very difficult to get a visa to come to the United States if you don't have already F1 status. Before you apply for a visa to come as a student, you have to have admittance by the university and go through a lengthy procedure to obtain your visa to come to the United States. So I don't believe it, there probably aren't any undocumented students on campus. We know we have undocumented students on campus, I can say that unambiguously. There are those who have self-revealed. >> Eric Sambrian, District 113. I'm strongly in favor of adding something like this to the motion. I don't however like making a quick judgment. Also it sounds as though perhaps similar items are being discussed specific to this campus and it could by chance turn out that the same list would occur. I would be more comfortable personally speaking now against this amendment and asking for additional information as it's prepared by this campus and then having some time to look it over before making a decision. That would be my choice. >> Mark Edsall, District 11. I was move to postpone this motion for the resolution till next faculty senate meeting. >> So we have an amendment on the table. How do I deal with the table in motion? So I have a motion to table this until the next faculty senate meeting which will be the first week of February. Is there a second to that motion? We must vote on the tabling motion and if it is voted through, then everything else here will simply be on hold. Do I get a discussion on tabling? Is there any discussion on tabling the motion? >> If we wait, Christelle Olsen of District 55. If we wait until the February meeting to act on the first part of this, the new administration may already have gotten rid of DACA. I would say it makes sense to not approve the amendment but to approve the statement on the dream act on dock at in order to make that statement which we know we can make. >> You want to respond to that? No. >> Ann Kangol, I'm in Botany. I'm sorry I don't know my district. My worry about tabling this entirely is it sends a message that we're tabling it entirely, I would prefer not to do that and instead send some kind of message of support. >> Yeah, I would also like to speak against tabling this at this moment. I hear your concern with the lack of teeth of this resolution, and although I would myself support many of the amendments that you have proposed. It seems like they create more problems than they solve, I agree with my colleagues who think that waiting until after the Trump administration is in place to act is actually acting too late. I also think that focusing on law-enforcement and what the administration can do takes the focus away from what we as a faculty can do. There is much that we can do to address and help these undocumented students besides declaring this campus a sanctuary. If you look at what UC Berkeley has done for example to their undocumented students program, they offer legal counseling through videos, through frequently-asked-questions pages and things like that. We have nothing of this nature on this campus. I don't know how many of you have taken the time to actually learn about DACA, and what it means, what the repeal of DACA what impact it would have on our students? This is our responsibility to do. It doesn't bring any sort of legal action but we have to do it as a faculty. There is much that we can do to support our students besides the legal route and I really urge you all to act now to help them, thank you. >> Okay. Comments again on tabling. >> Daemon Seth, 1978. So I do appreciate, I'm moved by the idea that we should make a statement sooner rather than later. So I don't like the tabling. I'm also moved by the comment about the teeth and adding teeth and I like that. So what I would like to ask from what I understand about the objection for the amendment that you have explained is that the university is in the process of working out some language and for some reason, it's possible that this wording may tie the hands of that language and I just like a little bit more explanation of how and why that would be the case. Why couldn't we pass this as the senate and whatever other language that you're going to support like why would that there be a possible contradiction? >> Do you want to talk to this, waiting for our general counsel? >> What I would like to talk about this, no. Will I, yes [laughter]. Here's the danger. There're a couple of different ways to do this. I think the greatest danger would just be the multiplicity of pronouncements by a variety of different segments of the university community that would worry me the most. I haven't, I'm not going to take the time now to go through all of these. Suffice it to say that immigration law is a complex cauldron of federal, state law. I wouldn't necessarily use California model because California is a separate sovereign, its laws are different and much more hospitable to this subject than Wisconsin's are. So I think the greatest danger here is just multiple pronouncements that might confuse the very audiences you're seeking to inform on the subject. Hence, I think the chancellor's I think to plea for allowing us to continue these discussions and come back to you I think a sensible one. >> Okay. Let me ask a simple follow-up question to that. Is this the case? And I'm not sure if this is the implication here and I'm not missing it, despite the fact that each one of these things seems to indicate to me that says we're going to follow the law even though it says we're not to do it. It says specifically we're going to follow the law. Is the suggesting that some of this may in fact be illegal? >> I think the concern is not so much that some of these things may be illegal. They may not correctly state the law in a way that I would recommend that you stated, and some of the assertions would probably just be inaccurate. >> Okay. >> So again, I think more prudent thing, my recommendation would be to hold off on this and see what we're able to accomplish. Obviously, the senate can do what the senate would like to do, but I think for a variety of reasons now least of which to avoid these multiple pronouncements that you give us a chance to work with some people who've come forward to put something together and then come back to you on this. >> Okay. So the last thing I'll say on just one other sentence is in terms of a multiplicity of pronouncements and would it confuse an audience, maybe, to me I think even if it is a multiplicity, even if it is a contradiction, I think if the message is that we resist and we support the people who are being threatened. So I'm not convinced by the idea that a multiplicity of pronouncements is a problem from what I understand of it so far, thank you. >> [Inaudible] Goldberg, District 71. This might be out of order, so I'll need the parliamentarian's help here. I would like to move to divide the resolutions so as to consider separately, the original resolution and amendment. This might take precedence. >> Is there any motion to table the whole thing of the whole discussion right now or? >> That takes precedence over there? >> Yeah, yeah. >> Okay. >> Tabling. >> I'm sorry, we're discussing the tabling option, only that. >> I'm in complete agreement with you, sorry, Ann Pringle, botany District. I'm in complete agreement you except I'd like to get this done right and this is not the right environment for having a thoughtful discussion about these five points unless we'd like to be here for a few hours. I volunteer but I'm guessing for a lot of us, that's not possible until we're in a place and the time when we can thoughtfully consider, there's a lot going on here, a lot of things happening and I don't really want to make a blanket statement that all five of those things are right for us. >> Other comments on tabling. >>...oceanic sciences, I guess I would oppose tabling because I think the original resolution is general enough that it still shows that we can support students who were under DACA and I think the amended resolution that the effect of the amended resolution can emerge over the coming weeks, so I would oppose tabling. >> Mark Estelle, District 11. Having listened to everything, I also wanted to speak against the motion to table [audience laughing]. >> If he wants to withdraw the motion and there is no objection to that, the motion will be withdrawn. Does anyone wish to object? In that case, the motion to table has been withdrawn and we're back to discussing the original set of amendments. >> Ellen Samuels, District 116. I would like to speak in favor of us passing something today and as a graduate of the University of California and longtime resident, I want to echo the fact that California is very different in many ways including the relationship of the state government to the university system. I don't think we can map California directly onto what we do here in Wisconsin, and I think all of us as scholars don't want to move hastily in something that's so complex. However, I would like to suggest that I think one or two sentences could be added to the original motion to give it a little more teeth and strength and were this amendment to be defeated, then I might rise to suggest such language. Alas, I just want to say how strongly I support this motion as well as the previous one because of all the students I have seen terrified and scared and yet so brave moving forward into the future right now and I feel we owe it to them to make a statement even though it won't be a perfect statement. I think the perfect is the enemy of the good right now, thank you [applause]. >> On the amendment. >> inaudible Goldberg, district 71 and I try this again. I move to divide the resolution so as to consider separately, the original motion and the amendment. >> Considering the amendment, so what does it mean to divide the resolution from the amendment? >> Two different resolutions that we would be voting on. >> I got to ask my parliamentarian about this. >> I'm really not trying to make trouble actually. This might make it easier for us. >> We cannot do that as long as this is an amendment. If you had a single resolution that had been amended, you then could do that but at this point in time, that is out of order. Alright, are we yet ready to vote on the amendments? One more comment. >> John McCall, philosophy. I just want to make one comment which is that I'm not sure it's true this has more teeth when one through four all have an exception unless required by federal law. I mean, I'm pretty confident that the administration is not going to take initiative against immigrants that it does not believe to be required by federal law. So I disagree even with the main reason stated for it. >> Any other comments? Are we ready to vote on the amendments? >> This is 1970, just a very quick parliamentarian question. Is it possible to pass the resolution without the amendment, and then amend the resolution? >> You can go back to the second resolution at the next faculty meeting. >> Okay. It's a different resolution, it's not an amendment. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Alright, we're going to vote on the amendment. I don't see anyone moving towards the microphones. All those in favor of the amendments as indicated here adding five more additional points, indicate by saying "aye." >> Aye. >> All those opposed. >> No. >> The no's have it. So we're back to the original resolution on DACA as stated. I have a call of the question on the original resolution all those and that it does not require any votes. A second? It doesn't need a second. We're going to vote on the overall resolution. All those in favor of voting now without further discussion indicate by saying "aye." >> Aye. >> All those opposed. >> Nay. >> I think the ayes have that, that means we have to go immediately into a vote. All those in favor of the resolution as originally stated, indicate by saying "aye." >> Aye. >> All those opposed. The resolution passes. Alright, thank you [applause]. I would like a motion to move into closed session pursuant to statute Wis. Stats. 19.85 (1)(c) and (f) to consider the recommendation of the committee on honorary degrees. This is actually important, so moved. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor of going to close session, indicate by saying "aye." >> Aye. >> Any opposed? We're in close session. The senate will now consider the confidential report of the committee on honorary degrees pursuant to Wisconsin statutes 19.85(1) (c) and (f) and under faculty policies and procedures. The report must be heard and considered in an executive session. Therefore, I have to ask anyone who does not hold faculty status to leave the room at this time and we wait until you are out of the room. So move along [laughter]. Once you have voted, I declare the meeting adjourned. I encourage you all to hand your ballots in as appropriate.