UW-Madison Faculty Senate February 6, 2017 >> Rebecca Blank: I am told we don't yet have a quorum, but we're close. And I'm going to propose we start with the memorial resolutions. So if I can ask the faculty to rise as they were able for that reading. Let me recognize Professor Ivy Corfis to present the memorial resolution for Professor Emeritus Roberto Sanchez. >> Ivy Cofis: Good afternoon. Roberto Sanchez was born in San Antonio, Texas on September 24th, 1922. He joined the UW Faculty in 1950, was tenured in 1955 and promoted to Full Professor in 1963. Roberto was an influential scholar and his professional contributions were wide ranging and meaningful. His most lasting legacy in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese was the culture of theater and performance that he actively fostered for over three decades. He retired in 1984 and moved to Santa Barbara, California in 2002. More than a profession, for Roberto, teaching was a calling. No one embodied the importance of teaching and scholarship more completely than he. Roberto cherished education above all. His philanthropic support of Latino/Latina students in Madison public schools, colleges and UW-Madison will continue to benefit higher education well into the future. Roberto passed away on August 15th, 2016 in Santa Barbara at the age of 93. We miss him greatly but his memory will endure for countless years to come. >> Rebecca Blank: Thank you, Ivy. And I want to recognize that Mike Mulvihill, who is the son of Roberto's dissertation adviser, is here along with his wife and a number of other friends. So, thank you all for coming. [ Applause ] Let me recognize Professor Arjang Djamali to present the memorial resolution for Professor Emeritus Sung-Feng Wen. >> Arjang Djamali: Today, we honor the memory of Dr. Sung-Feng Wen, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Medicine, Nephrology Division, UW School of Medicine and Public Health, who passed away on May 14, 2016 at the age of 83. Professor Wen was a triple threat academic nephrologist. He was a dedicated clinician, scholar, teacher, scientist and collaborator. His work as a scientist on renal transport of glucose and phosphate provided the foundation for key clinical studies leading to understanding the population health of chronic kidney disease and diabetes. Virgil will be deeply missed by his family, friends and the generations of nephrologists he helped train. >> Rebecca Blank: Thank you very much. That is the end of memorial resolutions, and you may all be seated. And thank you all for coming. I have just a few things that I want to say before we move into the substance of the meeting. Just a little bit of news from around the university. As you may have seen in the press, last week, we officially unveiled the Wisconsin Crop Innovation Center in Middleton, which is the facility gifted to us from Monsanto. This facility is unlike almost any other in the country, and it really steps up the genetic crop research that our crop researchers from across the university do. And I'm very excited about the possibilities that this opens up. On the student research front, I do want to recognize the group of students from the engineering school who competed in the world wide SpaceX Hyperloop Pod Competition. And the goal here was to shoot a pod with people in it to a 200-mile pneumatic tube and be able to transport people between cities by pneumatic tube and much faster than you could on a freeway. Elon Musk sponsored this. We were one of three teams that were chosen to go into the semifinals from the-- I think from around the US. It was an international competition. And in the final round, we won one of the two innovation awards for the cleverness with which we designed our pod. So, congratulations to those students. It's sort of one small example of the great work that our students were doing. Continuing on the education student theme, we just had the last day of applications to the university last week Wednesday. And I'm pleased to say that applications are up 8% this year. Some of that was very much expected because we moved on to the common application, which is many of you know may fit easier for students who are applying to a whole host of other national schools who also applied to Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, and this is particularly good news, applications are up 3%. That's despite the fact that the number of high school graduates is actually declining slightly. And we believe that we haven't done all the data analysis on this, but that this is particularly an increase among students who weren't applying in Wisconsin because otherwise you use the system map, but were otherwise applying to other national schools and are now applying to us as well. And we very much want to attract even more of the really high scoring top end students here in the state to stay in the state and to come to Madison. And then in other news related to students, we have approved a 3.5% increase in the TA standard and the PA stipends. I believe this is the fifth year in a row that we have proposed substantial increases in those stipends. You know that faculty and staff salaries have not gone up by and large during those years. But this is one that we need to do. For reasons that are a complete mystery to me, we got way behind on this, and we have to keep pushing on this one. But it is important to support our graduate students in their institutional teaching and research missions. Finally, if you have not met her, she's not here today, but I do want to note that we have a new UWPD Police Chief, Kristen Roman, who comes to us with 26 years of experience. She was-- has been very involved as the community coordinator most recently in the UW-- in the Madison Police Department. And so, she has great connections in the community both in Madison and in the larger policing community in the state and the region. And has hit the ground running and I'm very, very pleased to have her on board. Last week, we hosted the Board of Regents meeting. It was a good meeting. We-- Because we were hosting, which happens once a year, we got to showcase what UW-Madison is doing in terms of research, in terms of education, in terms of our facilities' expansion. But we also stressed and I have the chance to talk to this that new state investment and flexibilities are absolutely essential if we are going to continue to be as excellent university in the future as we have been in the past. I am encouraged by the things the governor and the legislature have been saying about higher education budgets. The governor will be announcing his budget proposals on Wednesday at 4 o'clock, and we will know more then, but everything that I have heard suggests that there will indeed be some reinvestment in the higher education in this budget as proposed by the governor. And that's very good news I think for all of us. I'm also very concerned about what would-- and this is less clear-- what will happen in terms of the capital budget, which is also essential for us and other higher education institutions and what will happen in terms of across the board compensation for state employees, which is, you know, has been pretty close to zero in a lot of recent years. I've been meeting with state legislators every week, traveling around the state to talk with alumni and business leaders and we'll continue to be doing that. A lot of my time has been spent at the other end of state street, and that will continue to be true for a number of months here. After that Board of Regents meeting, we announced something. I just want to let you all know about if you didn't read about it. This is conditional on having the state dollars. We cannot do this if we have another budget cut. But given-- that looks unlikely. We announced what we're calling the Badger First-Generation Transfer Promise. We have just completed transfer agreements, new-- consistent transfer agreement with all of the two-year colleges in the system and are finalizing them right now with a number of the big technical schools such as Madison Area Technical College. Our statement here is that for first generation students, students who do not have either parent with a four-year degree, who complete that transfer agreement at a two-year school, that transfer agreement, if they do the things required there, automatically admits them to Madison. And our promise is for those first generation students, we will guarantee them one year with zero tuition cost. And if they're eligible, we will guarantee them two years with zero tuition cost. As some of you probably know, first generation students are more likely to start at two-year schools. They often living at home, have some other obligations that makes it harder for them to spend all four years away. They're less likely to continue on to four years. And some of this is income levels, some of this is just not having the type of advising and knowledge of college that some other students have. So, the goal here is to increase our service particularly to first generation students in the state. And it's something since I've arrived, I've been noticing that our first generation numbers, I think, are not as high as they should be. And this is a good way to provide greater affordability to a group that needs that affordability and needs that extra incentive to come. So, if you didn't meet about that, given a little bit more in terms of financial investment from the state, we intend to prioritize this program. It's something we will start this next year. Immigration. I know that many of you are highly concerned about the effects of the most recent executive order and its impact on our community. I share those concerns and a number of staff have been working on this issue quite extensively over the last week and a half. I've publicly called for the recent executive order to be reconsidered and stated the need for a balance approach that on the one hand addresses security, but does not weaken the flow of people particularly the intellectual movement of students, of staff, of faculty, of science, back and forth across borders. The competitiveness of our economy depends upon that. And I would say some of the core principles of our democracy do as well. Last week, I signed a joint letter from the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities opposing that executive order. We have reached out to all students-employees we believe to be affected by this order. If you know of anyone we haven't reached out to, please let us know. It is, of course, right now a little unclear where this is going to end up, given it's been stated in the courts, but we will be watching that closely, sharing information as fully as possible, and are particularly concerned of being in touch with the people who-- for whom this has most immediate impacts. And then let me segue from there into a student issue. About three weeks ago, we had a lot of press about the fact that a student had indicated his desire to form a campus group aligned with the American Freedom Party, a white supremacist group. And I will note that at this time, he's not applied for status, as a registered student organization, and in fact, we have reason to believe that he may not be applying for that status. I will be very blunt, and I've said this in publicly and in print, I find this point of view and the point of view of the American Freedom Party repugnant and absolutely counter to the values that I would like to have expressed here at the University of Wisconsin. But what the student has done at this point is express his political views. And as vehemently as I might disagree with those views, this is protected free speech. There have been no threats of violence or threats against specific individuals, which is where the bounds of free speech tend to stop. And I cannot and will not discipline student, a faculty member or a staff member for expressing their political views, however much others may speak up in opposing those views. We're monitoring the situation and we will not hesitate to act if we think there is a more mediate threat to our community safety or to any individuals. Making this case more complicated is the information that has come out indicating the student has a past felony conviction for arson against black churches. As, again, I've suspect many of you have read this, there is a system-wide policy that no University of Wisconsin school can ask about our use of any information about past criminal convictions in our application process. And as also been wildly reported, I have formally requested that President Cross at least start a conversation about the pros and cons of that policy. Now, let me be clear about my position because having said that, people have immediately wanted to say, I want to bar all people's criminal convictions and that is not, at all, my intent. A past criminal conviction by itself should never be a bar to the admission to this university or any other. But particularly for felony convictions, rape, arson, armed with a deadly weapon, I think it is untenable that we would know whether there was a student on this campus or not know whether there was a student on this campus who had such a past history. The concern about campus safety is stronger at this moment in time than I have seen it in my over 30 years around higher education. And I suspect that most parents and students would as a matter, of course, expect that we would know and be watching a little bit if we have students with this type of background. I hope the system will at least review what other schools do, many other schools collect this information and how they use it. A number of schools shuttle any application that reports a criminal conviction to a special committee that decides whether that conviction creates any concerns, whatsoever, and then sends it back and the application process does the job. Another option is to be blind in applications but upon application to look at whether there is any form of a felony in the background and then say, does this create any limits? So, for instance, might this be a student that we asked not to live in the dorms. You could imagine something like that. I don't have a specific proposal, the discussion may end up saying that where we are now is where we should be, but I do think it's a discussion worth holding. And then finally, let me end by noting a number of you I know were concerned about the campus carry issue and the possibility of concealed weapons being allowed on campus and buildings. Right now, they're allowed on campus, but our buildings are all posted to keep them out. A bill is not yet been introduced on this, but I understand that Representative Jesse Kremer has said that he intends to introduce such a bill this session. It is not clear where this bill will go or quite what will happen. Let me just be clear that we remain absolutely opposed to any changes that weakens the current bond on concealed weapons in campus buildings. Guns do not belong in the classroom, they do not belong in faculty and staff offices, they do not belong in our sporting arenas. And every police chief in the UW system has stated their opposition to this and we are working with them and other concerned groups to prevent changes to current law. I continue to meet with state legislators and talk to them about the unique concerns of safety on campus. And should this bill actually look like it is moving somewhere, I promise you that I will engage everyone I possibly can, including parents, in a discussion with our state legislators about the wisdom of such a bill. So, that's what's happening around campus and around the state. Are there-- Amy, you want to say anything? Why don't you make your comment and then we'll open for questions jointly. Yeah. >> Amy Wendt: Good afternoon. I'd like to make quick announcement about the executive order on immigration. First, I'd like to acknowledge the efforts of our campus administration, but as you may be aware, faculty on a number of campuses are also organizing responses. And I wanted to let you know that the University Committee has been in conversation with faculty governance leaders at other big 10 institutions about initiatives both on the local level and possible coordination between campuses. The big 10 group has circulated a poster that individuals can put up in their units. And this is the poster here. And have also discussed making a joint statement. As the UC continues this discussion, we invite you and your colleagues to send in your thoughts and information about activity already underway. And I understand that Steve Smith, the Secretary of the Faculty has volunteered to accept your comments via email. What is the email address? Sof@secfac.wisc.edu. Thank you. >> Rebecca Blank: Questions for myself or for Amy? >> Mark Etzel: Mark Etzel, District 11. First of all, I wanted to say that I really applaud you for this effort that you've come out with to give free tuition to first generation undergraduates coming in. I think that's-- I really admire that you've done that, and I appreciate that. [ Applause ] >> Rebecca Blank: I do not want to take complete personal credit for this, this is the effort of a wide variety of people of the admission's office and the financial aid office and my office. They've really put this together wonderfully. Yes. >> Mark Etzel: I hope that you get enough funding so that every eligible student not just a token few can get free tuition. >> Rebecca Blank: Enough funding and more. >> Mark Etzel: Yeah. All right, so my question to you is related to this doc. And I don't know if you remember but I introduced that resolution back in December, and then you said, no way, we're going to come out with something. And then December 15th of last year, there was a statement release about what you were going to do. And it is very similar to what I had proposed and I really was excited when I saw this. And I just wanted to review some of the four points for those of the faculty that haven't read it. Point number two is that you said that you will not provide information on immigration status except under the force of law. Point three was that the Police Department will not participate with immigration and enforcement actions by the government, federal government. And four was that you would not disclose anything without a proper warrant. OK. And that was in December. Fast forward, January 28th, we got a new president. A little bit after that, there's the-- a protest at Berkeley, my alma mater, and right after that, the president of the United States threatened to cut off all federal funding to UC Berkeley because of that protest. In addition, the president of the United States has threatened to cut off all federal funding to any city that appears to be a sanctuary city. So, what I'm wondering is, this is back in December, could you make a public statement now reaffirming your commitment to these four principles? >> Rebecca Blank: We actually made that statement when I released my response to the executive order. I referenced to this statement and incorporated it into that response, so that we reaffirm that these were the principles by which we are operating at this university in response to the executive order. And I can make sure you see that but I-- unambiguously, that is where we believe legally we need to be and must be. Yeah. >> Mark Etzel: I'll just-- >> Rebecca Blank: Yeah. >> Mark Etzel: -- add to that. If the president of the United States threatens UW-Madison campus to cut off all federal funding, will you bend on these four principles? >> Rebecca Blank: Well, that threat threshold did not relate to these issues related to a free speech issue, but I am pretty sure the president of the United States does not have the authority to end funding of the universities. There's been quite a discussion of that after the tweet involving Berkeley. So, I think we are going to stand pretty firm on this set of issues. Yeah. >> Jerome Camal: Jerome Camal, District 45, Anthropology. I want to speak on behalf of my department in asking you to avoid considering background checks on admissions. We are very concerned that this would impact greatly our-- the attractiveness of this university for students of color, who as you know because of the racial discrimination in the legal system, in the state especially, would be more impacted than others in this process. >> Rebecca Blank: I appreciate that. And I would suggest that you send a letter to-- that you send a letter to a letter to Ray Cross stating that, because he's the one who's going to oversee-- say this is a system-wide policy, and he's the one who'll oversee it. Yeah. Yeah. >> Paul Milenkovic: Paul Milenkovic, District 36, Electrical and Computer Engineering. I whole heartedly endorse the chancellor's position on the executive order that a better balance needs to be established between legitimate security needs of our nation and the interchanged of scholars, people engaged in commerce and other family visits, every other people seeking to cross our national border. As to my esteemed electrical engineer colleague, the door is open to all has never been the policy. I'm not talking-- speaking of this administration, I'm speaking of prior administrations, I'm speaking to my sole first cousin who was pointedly excluded and forbidden to have a tourist visa to this country because of his nationality, ethnicity and residence in an active conflict zone and concern that he would violate the terms of his visa and take a permanent residency in the United States. So I endorse the chancellor's balanced approach. I defer with the-- a declaration of open borders. Thank you. >> Rebecca Blank: Damon. >> Damon Sajnani: All right, Damon Sajnani, District 78, Afro-American studies and African cultural studies. I just wanted to reaffirm our concern the District 45, Anthropology, brought up. We also are very concerned with any suggestion that there would be background checks for the exact reasons that have been mentioned. And we'll be happy to work on a letter with the-- with Jerome and others-- >> Rebecca Blank: That's good. >> Damon Sajnani: -- supporting that. Thank you. >> Rebecca Blank: John. >> John Sharpless: John Sharpless, History, District 60. I'm going to request caution on background checks on our applicants. It is a matter of fact that working class people both of color and white tend to have confrontations with the law on a more frequent basis than the upper class. They also have inadequate legal advice and the procedures of the case and often are convicted of crimes that are much more severe than the actual incident. Second thing I'm concerned about, one of the things that puts us in a comfortable position on the issue of undocumented immigrants is that we don't hold information on them. No one can access it because we don't have it. I'm very troubled with university files having information on peoples' past altercations with the law. >> Rebecca Blank: Thank you. Anyone else? All right, in that case, I'm going to proceed with the agenda. And the next question is whether there are any additions or corrections to the minutes of December 5th, on page five and six of your folder. Anyone want to suggest additions or corrections? If not, I will accept the minutes as presented. Let me then call again on Professor Ivy Corfis who's going to present the report of the nominations for election to the Committee on Committees and the annual report of the Committee on Committees. Ivy. >> Ivy Corfis: Good afternoon. I'm hoping this is going to work. OK. Kind of. Good. So I'm going to begin with the agenda item number five, which is nominations for election of the Committee on Committees. The Committee on Committees as you all know appoints the faculty members of Chapter 6 committees and the nominations for the election for the seat representing the Physical Sciences Division on Committee on Committees are professor, John Yin, District 34, Chemical Engineering and Professor Dan Vimont, District 64, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. And I'll apologize if I mispronounced anyone's name. And as you know by FPP 6.32.B.3, additional nominations may be made from the floor of this Senate meeting. And Chancellor Blank will ask for any such nominations in a moment. I would just like to remind you regarding this election for the seat in the Physical Sciences Division on the Committee on Committees that the election will open on April the 3rd and close on midnight on April the 16th. And only senators vote on this election for the Committee on Committees members. So, remember to vote. That's the information. Are there any questions regarding that nomination for the election for the member of the Committee on Committees for the Physical Sciences Division? If none and there seems there are none, then I'll move on to agenda item number six, which is the annual report of the Committee on Committees, which is in effect the nominees for four faculty-elected committees. And I'll bring those slides up in a moment. You saw them queuing with the different committees I believe before the meeting started. And the information on those slates can also be found on pages seven through nine of your agenda packets. Before I'll show you the slides and go through the committees one by one, I would just state that you will see on the slates for the University Committee and the Commission on Faculty Compensation and Economic Benefits that those slates are not complete, there are some spaces to be announced. And the Committee on Committee, of course, encourages your nominations. You may send those nominations to me or to the Office of the Secretary of the faculty at any time. And they can also be made from the floor of this meeting, again, as per FPP 6.32.B.3, in case you want to look it up. So, we're going to start with the first committee, which is the University Committee. And I've even got this right. Faculty policies and procedures, of course, 6.54 gives you the definition and the functions of this committee, but you all know that it serves as the executive committee of the Faculty Senate, represents the faculty in major policy matters, and serves as the faculty's grievance committee except for the matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. This is the slide that you see behind me and is also in your agenda packets as we have it at the moment. There are the two faculty members to be elected to three-year terms with this election. And as you will know and can check on the faculty-- and in fact, FPP, no more than three members shall be from a single school or college on this committee, and at least one member shall be from each faculty division. So those are the requirements. The next committee slate is the Commission on-- yes, I've even got it right again-- Faculty Compensation and Economic Benefits. And as you all know, this represents faculty in salary and economic benefits issues and discussions, hearings, and other appropriate settings. Three faculty members are to be elected to serve three-year terms on this election. And as per FPP, no more than three members shall be from a single faculty division, and at least two members shall-- must be non-tenured at the time of the election. The next committee is the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. This body, as you also know, serves as the appeal body for faculty non-renewal decisions and functions in accordance with the rules of the Board of Regents and the faculty in cases of recommendation for discipline and dismissal of faculty members. Three faculty members are to be elected to serve three-year terms with this election. At least one and no more than three members shall be from a single faculty division. Then the last committee, which is the University Library Committee, this-- and you see again on your slide, this is-- you also know serves as the faculty advisory body for policy and planning for libraries throughout the university including the General Library System. Two faculty members are to be elected to serve four-year terms with this election. The committee shall have eight faculty members with two from each division. Now, the election for these committees also will be from April the 3rd to close midnight on April the 16th, and is open to all faculty and remind your colleagues to vote. We always be looking for a higher turnout. So I will put that plugged in. >> Rebecca Blank: You've seen the committee slates, are there any nominations from the floor? In that case, I will declare that nominations are closed, and the election will proceed as indicated. Let me recognize Professor Leslie Smith, who will present for informational purposes the University Curriculum Committee's annual report. There you are. >> Leslie Smith: Right. So I'm just going to present the 2015-2016 UCC Annual Report. As you may know, there are two main activities of this committee. The first is course proposal, review and approval. And the second is educational policy and planning. And so, in the first category, we reviewed 720 proposals last year, up 10% from the previous year, which is high enough that we actually had to go from one meeting per month to two meetings per month, so that we can actually do the course proposal review in addition to the take-up policy items. So, another change that happened last year is on committee membership, we went from-- originally it was 12 faculty members, three from each division, and now it is eight faculty members, two from each division and four academic staff members with instructional titles, which I think is working very well. So, I'm anticipating that we'll stay with that model for the future, foreseeable future. And out of those 720 proposals that we reviewed, about 240 were new course proposals. On the policy side, we took up some fairly straightforward items last year and then some less straightforward items that are continuing in to this year. We needed to have an implementation plan for the graduate attribute, which is for courses below the 700 level that have both undergraduates and graduates in the classroom. And we wanted to uphold the standards for education at the graduate level for those courses. And the way that we finally decided was-- the most consistent way of providing this kind of policy was to ask for separate graduate and undergraduate learning outcomes on the syllabus or the course proposal form. So that is now what we're doing across the board. And I think it's starting to work pretty well. We also started to become concerned about high levels of participation in new course proposals, not that that's a bad thing, but that the students would not understand what it means to have a good participation evaluation. So, we are asking now for a rubric if the participation is to be assessed at something higher than 10% of the grade. And we're not making a judgment call, we're just asking that if it'd be explained well to students how participation will be assessed. So those were two of the more straightforward policy items that we took up last year. And a bigger issue for us going forward is how to interpret in a consistent way the federal credit hour requirements that we need to uphold. And that's becoming difficult because more and more of our courses are changing from the traditional lecture discussion type model to many other models out there. As you know, online courses, blended learning courses, flipped classrooms and other things that we may not even be able to foresee at this point. So, we want to have a policy that is consistent independent of modality. And so, we've been reading the literature and trying to come up with our-- a consensus for how to move forward, that's consistent with I think what the Provost Office would like to see. So that is something that we're working on and hope to have a draft policy statement by the end of this academic year. And, of course, it will need to be reviewed by other constituents on campus and make sure that we're all on board. So that's something we're tackling ongoing. And together with that, we are designing a new course proposal form. And at the center of that new course proposal form, we're intending to have the learning outcomes be the central item so that the description course description and all the other components will be tied to the learning outcomes. I think that's most of what I wanted to say on the policy side. We did hear from a few units about significant changes to the overall curriculum including in the Medicine program for the doctor of medicine and the Farm and Industry Short Course program, which is going from a noncredit to a credit-bearing program. So those two units were making major overalls to their curriculum and we discuss that with those units. With that, I'll take questions. Any questions, comments? Thank you very much. >> Rebecca Blank: Thank you for you and your committee for your work. Yeah. Let me recognize Professor Dan Klingenberg who will present for information purposes, the University Library Committee Annual Report. >> Dan Klingenberg: OK. I believe you all have the document. So I'm just going to highlight a couple of things. Last year, we spent quite the largest amount of time advising-- reviewing and advising the libraries on library consolidation and the Open Access Policy Initiative. And most of that advising was on the role of communication with the stakeholders and those efforts. The other thing I'd like to mention is toward the end of the academic year, we send a letter through the chancellor describing the dire state of the collection's budget and a request for a larger collection's budget. And I understand she responded positively. And so, hopefully next year's annual report, we'll-- maybe we'll have some numbers. So everyone is very thankful for that positive response. Thank you very much. So that's all I have to say. But I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Rebecca Blank: Questions? All right, thank you Dan. Let me recognize Professor Amy Wendt who will move adoption of changes to Faculty Policies And Procedures to clarify roles. This is on page 21 and 22 of your packets. >> Amy Wendt: I move adoption of Faculty Document 2666, which clarifies the roles of the chancellor and provost with regard to faculty transfers, departmental chair selection, committee reports, and actions on probationary appointments. These are-- There are detailed explanations of each of these changes in your materials. In short, these bring FPP into line with our campus practices. >> Rebecca Blank: There' no second required since this comes from the UC. Is there a discussion or comment on the motion? In the absence of discussion or comment, I will call for a vote. All those in favor of the adoption of Faculty Document 2666 indicate by saying aye. >> [Simultaneously] Aye. >> Rebecca Blank: Any opposed? The motion passes. Let me recognize Professor Wendt again who will move adoption of a change to the FPP procedure for leaves of absence. >> Amy Wendt: I move adoption of Faculty Document 2667, which updates FPP to reflect current UW System Policy. In the past, leaves of absence of more than two years required approval by the System president and leaves of more than three years required Board of Regents' approval. Current System and Regent policy only requires UW System president approval of leaves of over five years. So this is a rare case in which System policy is improved. And we're just coming in to comply in this. >> Rebecca Blank: Again, no second is needed. Is there any discussion of this change or of this document? If not, I will call on a vote to adopt Faculty Document 2667. All those in favor indicate by saying, aye. >> [Simultaneously] Aye. >> Rebecca Blank: Any opposed? All right, that passes. Let me now recognize Professor Dan Uhlrich, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee to amend our Research Misconduct Policy, who will move adoption of a new Research Misconduct Policy and related changes to FPP. There are two documents together. And if you change one, you have to change the other, right? If you change the policy, you have to change the FPP. So that's why we're going to vote on this together. The Faculty document is on page 26 in your packet and the FPP changes are in page 54 in your packet. >> Dan Uhlrich: I move adoption of Faculty document 2668a, a proposed new campus policy on research misconduct, and document 2668b, which updates FPP to reflect the new policy. >> Rebecca Blank: I need a second on this motion, is there one? All right, the motion is made and seconded. Dan, do you want to speak? >> Dan Uhlrich: Document 2668b with no letter is the two-page summary of why we made these revisions and summarize the changes and the policy. To basically summarize the summary, I'll just say a few things about that. The reason for doing this is that our current policy which was developed in 1991 and modified slightly in 2007 is not aligned with current federal regulations. And our compliant policy is required to receive federal funding. So, that's pretty good reason right there. We put together a committee and that committee is listed at the bottom of page two. It basically represents the major groups involved in implementing the policy and also those who might be subject to this policy. For the purposes of Faculty Senate, I want to point out that five members of the committee currently hold faculty appointments. So, the strategy of our committee was basically to adopt basic federal-- required federal terminology and processes while maintaining some of the local faculty governance principles that are the in the current policy. So we now-- this policy now uses federally-mandated procedures. But rather than-- the local governance piece is that rather than having a central person implement the entire policy, some parts of the policy are implemented by dean's office in the local school or college. So that's one-- that's one major-- well, so that's really not-- the major change there is aligning the policy to make grant federal regulations. A couple other major changes worth noting is that we've altered the definition of research misconduct. Current federal requirements for that research misconduct is fabrication, that's making it up, falsification, which is altering it and plagiarism, which is copying somebody else's work. Currently UW-Madison policy had a-- it has an additional phrase, which is-- oops, other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scholarly community. So that's a-- current policy is much broader than what is required and we took out that phrase. In general, I should note that those unacceptable practices are usually covered by some other compliance component in our policies. OK. The other major change regards the evidentiary standard from making decisions. Federal policy requires that you use a preponderance of the evidence. That's-- it's-- the evidence is more in favor of a decision than against, whereas our current policy states clear and convincing, an extremely clearcut case versus-- for-- they-- it maintains a clear and convincing for non-federally funded work. And for federally funded work, it adopts the preponderance of the evidence. The committee discussed that and decided that we should use the same standards for all regardless of funding. The final comment I would like to make is that our policy needs to comply with federal regulations. We'd run the policy by the federal Office of Research Integrity. And as it stands now, they say it complies. If we make any major changes through the policy, we have to run it back that way again. >> Rebecca Blank: All right. Thank you, Dan. Are there comments, issues that anyone wants to raise about the document? They could take our federal funding away if we didn't do this right. >> Judith Burstyn: Judith Burstyn, District 48. So, this is all very important things to do. Are we voting simultaneously on the policy and the changes to the FPP or not? >> Rebecca Blank: Yes. The idea is we're voting simultaneously because if we adopt the policy, we have to amend FPP. You can't do one and not the other. >> Judith Burstyn: Not the others. >> Rebecca Blank: So, we're going to vote on both together, so why they're listed as A and B, those two documents. >> Judith Burstyn: So then I had a question specifically about the FPP change, which one of the changes clearly brings CFRR into a place that it didn't exactly fit in the past. And I just wanted to make sure that there had been conferral with the CFRR. [ Inaudible Remark ] So, did you confer with CFR and its chair to ensure that-- I mean, did this and the University Committee I assume thinks this is the logical way to-- it makes sense to me. I just want to make sure that the people who were committee members were actually consulted and the University Committee is also in agreement. >> Rebecca Blank: Identify yourself, please. >> Brian Vaughan: Sure. Brian Vaughan of Legal Affairs. No one in the current CRF was consulted with. We did have representative from the University Committee, Professor Litovsky, but I don't know if there's a specific concern about the role, you know, efforts to the role of the CFR-- >> Judith Burstyn: No. No. I'm merely asking about process because it's bringing essentially a new role to CFRR. And it's not quite a new role, but-- >> Brian Vaughan: Yeah. Maybe I should be more clear. They have always been the body to whom an appeal may be taken at the last resort after the chancellor imposes a decision on finding of research misconduct. >> Judith Burstyn: For disciplinary dismissal. Right. So it's-- this is just extending that so that CFR is explicitly mentioned because if you look at the prior FPP, CFRR was not invoked in the same way that it is in this document. It's not that I think it doesn't make sense, it's just-- I'm asking about the process. >> Brian Vaughan: Sure. I think the first statement, they're more explicitly called upon to serve in the role as is the Academic Staff Appeals Committee and a similar body if the situation should arise for graduate students to have an appeal to review the decision by the chancellor. >> Judith Burstyn: Does-- >> Dan Uhlrich: It was mentioned in the current Research Misconduct Policy, so. >> Rebecca Blank: Other questions or issues? [ Inaudible Remark ] Yeah. Yeah. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> John Ohnesorge: John Ohnesorge from the law school. I just had a question about the evidentiary standard and shifting from there and convincing sort of preponderance. Is that parallel to what's been happening in Title IX conduct, too? Is that also driven by-- I mean, what's the basis for that? And if it's kind of guidance coming out of the Department of Education, I suggest that you might want to wait because we have a new administration and it's not taking friendly attitude to our-- all the [inaudible] of the Obama administration. >> Dan Uhlrich: OK. Well, there are-- currently, the current federal regulation, current law is that if there's federal funding involved, we must use preponderance of the evidence. And that's what our current UW policy says for federally funded work. So, the difference here is what evidentiary standard we would use for non-federally funded work. So, at this time, we don't have-- at this time, we don't have-- sorry? >> John: Louder. >> Dan Uhlrich: Speak. Is this better? OK. So, that's-- OK. So, current federal policy is very clear on this that for federally funded work, you must use the standard of preponderance of the evidence. So, we don't have a choice in that matter for this. And that's how our current policy reads right now. When federal funding is involved, we use preponderance of the evidence. The clear and convincing standard is used in the current policy if no federal funds are involved, if the committee decided that funding shouldn't matter, we'd use the same-- we'd use the same standard for all. >> Rebecca Blank: Any other questions or issues? If not, if you are ready to vote, all those in favor of adopting these two-- let me get the numbers-- these two policies, both the change in the-- in research misconduct document and the related FPP 2668a and 2668b. All in favor of those changes, indicate by saying, aye. >> [Simultaneously] Aye. >> Rebecca Blank: Any opposed? All right, the motion carries. Thank you very much to your committee. I know you did a lot of work on this. All right, let me recognize Professor Wendt who's going to present a revised post-tenure review policy for our first reading because it feels like you're in roundhouse today. Remember that this is a first reading and not a voting item. And as such, formal amendments are not in order at this time. However, this first reading provides an opportunity for input and discussion to be considered by the University Committee in preparation for a vote on the policy at the March Senate meeting. Amy. >> Amy Wendt: Thank you. The draft post-tenure review policy on page 58 in the meeting materials is on the agenda today for first reading and discussion, thus paving the way for a motion to approve on the agenda for the March 6th Senate Meeting. Approval of a policy in March would enable submission in time for consideration at the April Board of Regents meeting. And just to clarify, the Board of Regents must approve any policy that we approve before it takes effect. If you are experiencing deja vu while listening to this, there is a good reason. I would like to thank you all for your patience and attention through consideration of many versions of this policy. And I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the many people who contributed to creating, reviewing, discussing and revising the document. I would specially like to thank the Ad Hoc Faculty workgroup that convened over winter break to draft the revised policy before you now. Members include in addition to myself, Dorothy Farrar-Edwards from the Kinesiology Department, also a member of the PROFS Steering Committee and was chair of the committee that drafted the very first revised version of the PTR policy approved by the Senate way back in spring of 2016, Eric Sandgren from veterinary medicine and also a member of the local AAUP chapter, and Donald Moynihan, Director of the La Follette School of Public Affairs and also a PROFS Steering Committee member. I think it's-- it will be useful to give brief review of the steps leading up to the point we're at now, starting with the most recent prior version of this policy, which was approved by the Senate at our meeting in November of 2016, just a few months ago. That policy which the Senate approved was then transmitted for the required approval by the Board of Regents and was submitted in time for consideration at their December 2016 meeting. However, the policy was not considered by the Regents as planned. What happened instead is as follows, the Regents made a change in UW System policy, RPD 20-9 and there's a link in the Senate agenda, which they approved at their December meeting. And our policy was returned to us for revision as it was deemed not compliant with the newly modified system policy. Got that? At their December meeting, the Regents did approve policy submitted by six other UW campuses, and also approved their own interim campus policy to be implemented at any UW System campuses that do not have a policy approved by the Regents at or before the Regents April 2017 meeting. So the clock is ticking. If we approve the policy in March and submit it, then it can be approved at the Regents' April meeting. And if that happens, then we will not be subject to their interim policy. There's a link in the meeting agenda to the Regents' interim policy as well. So, we have before us an opportunity to choose between accepting the Regent interim policy or submitting a revised policy of our own. I'm going to say a few words then about the System interim policy-- or I'm sorry, got to stick to my script here. The-- I'm going to talk first about the new Regents' policy document that guides the development of campus level posted in the review policy. The most significant of the new requirements from the UW System is greater authority for administration and the review process, in particular, the authority for the dean to make a decision on each review in their school or college after receiving the report of a faculty review committee. This is also a central element of the Regents' interim campus policy that will take effect in April unless our campus has its own policy approved by the Regents. In the interim policy, the dean has the final say in assigning a rating of does not meet expectations, meets expectations or exceeds expectations for each faculty member under review in their school or college. The Ad Hoc Committee or working group in the UC have drafted a policy that allows for a decision by the dean, but also protects faculty members from arbitrary decisions by that dean or department chair. This draft policy does departs from the Regents' interim policy, but still in keeping with the Regents' policy document, strengthening the role of faculty peers in the decision and minimizing the chance that decisions are based on factors other than whether the faculty member discharges conscientiously and with professional competence. The duty is appropriately associated with their position based on standards established at the level of the department or department-like unit faculty. The sixth campus policy is approved by the Board of Regents at their December meeting provided examples considered in compliance with the new system policy, that's the Regents' policy document. And those examples varied considerably from one another. The revisions in our draft policy, which are highlighted in the distributed document use language heavily borrowed from the UW-Milwaukee policy as it provided a model for inserting procedures that provide added protections against the unfair treatment within the constraints of the System policy. Specifically, now getting to our campus draft policy under consideration, the required decision by the dean will be the result of a so called sufficiency review in which the dean examines the review committee's process and conclusions. If the dean concurs with the review committee, the review concludes at this point. And in cases found to have substantial deficiencies, the next step is the development of a remediation plan. If the dean's decision does not align with the review committee's recommendation, however the case will go to the provost for adjudication. The provost will then conduct their own review, which will include consultation with the Divisional Committee Review Council referred to as the DCRC in our document. The DCRC will-- does ensure faculty input in the final decision and we'll be able to monitor the extent to which administrators are overwriting recommendations of faculty review committees. The DCRC is a committee to be established for this purpose. While likely to consist of former members of each of the divisional committees, the details of its composition will be decided only if this aspect of the proposed policy is approved. The function of the DCRC was modeled after one of the functions of the existing Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. Specifically, CFRR examines cases in which a probationary faculty member appeals a non-renewal or tenure denial decision. Similarly, the DCRC will review post-tenure review cases in which the dean did not concur with the review committee. The DCRC will advise the provost who will make the final decision in these cases. And then before we go into the discussion, I just wanted to mention for completeness that there are few other changes in the document. And I'd be happy to review them or answer questions about them. And then finally, right now and in the coming weeks is the time for discussion to raise concerns of any sort so that the version that comes up for a vote in March can incorporate suggestions. While formal amendments are not in order at this time, this is the time to discuss what amendment changement [phonetic] or changes people would like to see so that we can discuss them in advance of the March meeting and avoid last minute changes that might be problematic when it comes to Board of Regents' approval. Thank you. We have talked to people at System and I never say never but the indications are that the UW System is comfortable with our document and we'll recommend that the Regents approve it. >> Rebecca Blank: Discussion. >> Mark Etzel: Mark Etzel, District 11. So you and I read through this and you described the history of this a little bit. And what I heard was the history of this is that when Regent Behling wanted to revise the tenure process and the post-tenure review process, he mentioned that we-- that the administrator should have flexibility, flexibility, flexibility to dismiss faculty members. And so, what I had heard about this is that in late October of last year, when the Regents and UW Systems saw our policy that we worked hard on and adopted at this faculty senate, they said, "Wait a minute, it doesn't have that flexibility, flexibility, flexibility in here." We wanted to add another layer of review so that faculty who have tenure, when they come up for post-tenure review, who get a glowing review from their department, could be fired still, so to speak, by the dean giving their own negative review on a separate track. And then that separate track would go up to the provost and to the administration, but the dean wouldn't have to do exactly what we do as a faculty. They could have their own review process. And that could go to the provost. And so, now we have a dean or a higher level separate review that can overrule the faculty review. All right, let me finish please. All right, and so when I looked at this and I remember standing up in this faculty senate in November of 2015 and I made this statement, this is before all this happened. I said, "Our own leadership, Ray Cross, the Regents, the chancellor, in our own university committee, have betrayed as faculty. We have been lied to about tenure protections, budget cuts, and preserving faculty governance. You told us that tenure protections would not be weakened. But it's rather simply transferred to Regent policy. Ray Cross vowed to resign if shared governance and faculty tenure policies were not preserved. It seems our leadership no longer works from us, but for the opposition instead. These betrayals have shattered trust. What reason do we have to trust you, Ray Cross and the Regents anymore?" So what's happened here is we approved this as a faculty senate through the faculty governance process. They said, "Wait a minute, it doesn't have flexibility, flexibility." They kicked it back to us. And now, they're basically asking us to stick up to ourselves and send it through the faculty governance system back up to them and give them what they wanted. And then the-- to quote, Hall and Oates from their famous song, "I can't go for that." [ Laughter ] >> Amy Wendt: Just to clarify the dean's role in the draft policy before you, the dean's role is the sufficiency review. So basically, what the dean is doing is checking on the work of the review committee and ensuring that they've done their due diligence. And that's the role of the dean. And if they feel that the review committee has not done their due diligence, then the provost will-- >> Mark Etzel: So, let me ask you this then to-- just to narrow it down. Say that the dean disagrees. I get a faculty-- my faculty gives me a glowing review and the dean says no. What's to stop the dean from saying no? >> Amy Wendt: If the dean says no in that case, it will go to the provost who will consult with a faculty committee. Hopefully, of elected faculty members who will advise the provost in making a decision. >> Mark Etzel: Can the provost then say no even if the faculty committee says yes? >> Amy Wendt: Yes. >> Mark Etzel: So what you're saying is the administration-- >> Jump to the microphone, the microphone. >> Mark Etzel: So, what you're saying is that the faculty can say, yes, yes, yes, but at every step of the way, they can be overruled by the administration who says, no, no, no. >> Rebecca Dean: I will also note that any dean or provost who goes explicitly against a very clear recommendation by the faculty is basically signing, you know, saying they're no longer going to be effective in their job. I mean you know that. You know, I just-- this is-- you know, we've got a number of procedures and policies where deans and the provost end up into the final stages of the review and I have never-- >> Mark Etzel: You're saying, "Don't worry, trust me. This won't happen." >> Rebecca Dean: I am saying that the faculty have ongoing say throughout these reviews. >> Mark Etzel: Yeah. And so, what I hear is that if the faculty says yes, yes, not-- yes, the administration can say no, no, no. And it sounds a lot like the Regent Behling's flexibility, flexibility, flexibility. >> Rebecca Blank: Next comment. >> Brigitte Fielder: Thank you, Brigitte Fielder of District 51, alternate. I'm-- apologize I'll be giving this is just a cursory read, and my question is one of the clarifications, so I'm sorry if you've already answered this somewhere else. I'm wondering whether if as is the case with tenure and promotion there is any space in this review process for accommodations for life events such as the birth or adoption of a child, to care for a dying or ailing parent, illness, those kind of things. >> Amy Wendt: Yes, there is. So the post-tenure review is to be conducted every five years. But the timetable for the review can be altered with the permission of the provost in cases of reasons such as the examples you mentioned. >> Brigitte Fielder: OK. I don't see anything indicating that in this document. That-- Is there a place where that's indicated? >> C1. >> Amy Wendt: C1? Thank you. Fourth sentence of C1. >> Brigitte Fielder: Thank you. >> Rebecca Blank: Yes? >> Kurt Feigl: Kurt Feigl, District 58, I also have a question of clarification. I applaud your strategy of modeling our policy on that of the campus in Milwaukee. The question is was there a policy one of the six which was approved. >> Rebecca Blank: Yes. >> Don Moynihan: Don Moynihan, District 109. I served on the Ad Hoc Committee so not surprisingly, I'm going to speak in favor of the revised policy. The most meaningful change in the policy to what was previously approved by this body is I think actually a positive change. So, one concern that has been articulated is what we might call the role of dean problem. So the dean who wants to make sure you get tenure, and that dean in the previous version of the policy, as I understand it, could also set up the review committee that would then review your standing and whether you have a chance to maintain tenure. A very conscious strategy of the post-tenure Ad Hoc Review Committee was to look at other mechanisms to reduce the power of individual deans to eliminate that problem. So therefore, the final decisions goes up to the provost, and the provost consults a body that is not appointed by a dean, that is not appointed by a chancellor, that is not appointed by the provost, the provost consults a body that is appointed by and elected group of faculty members, which are the divisional committee members. They go up for election, you vote for them every spring and they will then appoint the people who give advice to the provost. So, the provost still makes the final decision, but that's essentially the same system we have in place for regular tenure decisions. Our advice is always advisory. >> Rebecca Blank: Judith, you're next. >> Judith Burstyn: Judith Burstyn, District 48. So, I will also speak in favor of accepting the policy. And I agree with Don about the model with the divisional committee group to be designed if the policy is approved, which also models on our discipline and dismissal on the role of CFRR in that context. I will say that I suspect that our administration may in fact not be enthusiastic about these changes. These are new roles which they are now required to take on. That being said, I like the change that essentially means that the dean does not have quite the role and the intervention of the provost is invoked. I will also say that this whole process is obviously been very frustrating. And I would argue that it is far better for us to adopt the policy than for us to allow the regents to define our policy. And therefore, no matter that we are-- yes, we are not necessarily working with people who we would agree with and this is not necessarily something we would have done had we had that choice, I really don't see that we have a choice and that we're better off doing this than what happened last year with our layoff policy where they changed our layoff policy without asking us. >> Kurt Paulsen: Kurt Paulsen, District 76, Urban and Regional Planning. Professor Burstyn already said most of what I wanted to say, so I want to second those comments. To that regard, I want to, I guess, make a comment, which is a form of a question. You know, our draft policy's procedure six, it says that the dean shall conduct the sufficiency-- shall conduct the sufficiency review. It is my understanding that the interim Regents' policy which would come into play if ours is not adopted refers to a dean's review as an independent substantive review, which is quite a different concept than the sufficiency review. So again, even though this may not be the best policy we would agree to, it seems to be the least bad option to preserve some former shared governance and what we want, if you want to respond. >> Amy Wendt: I just wanted to comment that difference in wording. The sufficiency review is an element that's in the UW-Milwaukee policy that was approved by the Board of Regents. So-- And we've also shown our policy to the System representatives and there's indications that that language will be accepted. And I think part of the reason that they find it acceptable is because we have this other level of review that will take place in the event that the dean disagrees with the recommendation of the review committee. >> Rebecca Blank: And I should add I think sufficiency review is also the language of the earlier draft that you all approved. >> Yes. >> Rebecca Blank: Is that right? Yeah. So it maintains that language. Yeah. >> Brigitte Fielder: I am sorry, follow-up question to my previous one, Brigitte Fielder, District 51. I believe maybe my question wasn't clear. The point that you directed me to the fourth sentence of C1 reads that the review might be deferred for unusual circumstances such as when it may coincide with approved leave, promotion review or other appointment, the provost may then determine a new review schedule. I'm asking rather about the kinds of events for which one might pause their tenure clock like the birth of a child, to care for an ailing family member rather than the work-related instances that might conflict with the possible review period here. >> Amy Wendt: I can't find the spot in the document, but it was the intent that these situations would be covered. [ Laughter ] OK. Yeah. >> Rebecca Blank: That's when you-- >> Amy Wendt: Yeah. So, there's a such ask. And so the sentiment was that this would also apply to other situations. But that's certainly an area where we can look at clarifying the wording between now and the March Senate meeting. >> Brigitte Fielder: Yeah, I think some explicit language saying that this could be deferred for a non-work related life event seems to be in order. >> Amy Wendt: Thank you. >> Dorothy Edwards: Dorothy Edwards, District 31. And, you know, a tired member of those many committees, and I will speak and urge this body to support this policy. I think this is, unfortunately, the best that we can get, and in fact, is an improvement in my opinion over the one that we passed last year because of the addition of this group of membership-- representing the membership of the divisional committee. And so it preserves advice from elected governance not just from individuals appointed by the university administration. And it preserves the ability of individual departments. This, remember, has to start at the department level to define the standards by which we will be evaluated, which allows for diversity across departments within schools, sort of the local option, as we call it, when you're going through a tenure review. And I think that's really important not to forget that we-- it starts with the faculty in the department and moves up. And I understand it's been frustrating, believe me I know. And I want to say that at every opportunity, we have fought to preserve the voice of the faculty in the decisions. And I believe this is better than having a policy imposed on us by the Board of Regents. >> Lisa Everett: Yes. Hello. I'm Lisa Everett on Physics, I think it's District 67. And my question is actually perhaps best directed to the legal-- our Legal Affairs representative. The question is to what extent are any of the records involved in post-tenure review, not only for the faculty in question but also for the deans or administrators involved, subject to open records, laws, request as can be made, as you well know by any person off the street? >> Yeah. Typically, those would not be accessible except for authorized representatives of the university. >> Rebecca Blank: The employment and personnel records are not subject to open meeting laws, typically, yeah, or open meeting request, yeah. >> Kurt Feigl: Kurt Feigl, District 58, again. I'm distressed that we feel that the Board of Regents is the opposition, but I remind all of us here that we do have a voice at that table. The state superintendent of instruct-- Public Instruction is an ex-official member of that board. And that person may not vote but that person can carry our vote. We have an opportunity to vote for that person on the April election, the primary is February 21st. >> Rebecca Blank: Thank you. Are there other comments? There clearly been a few suggestions, I'm sure that you see we'll take back and look at, that is then if all comments have been made. If there's anything as you look at this that occurs to you that you want to be sure they hear, please get it to them the next week or so, so they we can get these revisions through and out in a timely fashion before the next meeting. That is the conclusion of our business and I will declare the meeting adjourned. Thank you all for your time.