>> I am told we're missing five more people until we have a quorum and in the spirit of optimism I'm going to start and assume that those five people will arrive in the next 5 to 10 minutes because we have no votes to take yet. This is the first meeting that I know of in which we've had no memorial resolutions, so there is no need to stand. So instead, I will jump right in with a few comments and I will be brief because you're going to get a report from Patrick Sims, our chief diversity officer, on some of the things we're doing around diversity and then we'll take questions after those two things. So as you've probably heard, the board of regents voted last month to bring home the public media, Wisconsin Public Radio and Wisconsin Public Television to UW-Madison effective July 1st. So in addition to integrating cooperative extension back into campus we will also be integrating the two public media stations, which were also ours and which we founded. In fact, we founded what I believe to be one of the very first public radio stations in the country more than a hundred years ago. So as I've said with extension, I'm delighted to welcome these back to campus. I think both of them will give us a much more expanded visibility and outreach in the state, there are two major statewide institutions here and I hope that their integration into our campus will give them deeper content and deeper connections to the wide range of things that our campus does. We are using the same process with them as we have used with cooperative extension, we're merging their group in, we're putting people from the public media groups on all of our different working groups that are already underway with regard to cooperative extension. So as I say, I think we're in good shape here and I look forward to moving this whole process forward and welcoming this group, as well as others. I should also note there's a very small group which is popularly known as the School for Workers, but it's actually known officially the Department of Labor Education which I think has six or seven people that's also coming and will be integrated into continuing studies which does outreach and teaching on labor-related issues. So at the February board of regents meeting I announced a new program around access and affordability and wanted to just say a word about that. This we're calling Bucky's Tuition Promise and it's basically I think most of you've probably read about this, a commitment that says for any family in the state of Wisconsin whose adjusted gross income, I think that's line 57 on your tax form or some such thing, if your adjusted gross income is less than 56,000 we will promise you that your tuition and fees will be covered at this university. Now you have to fill out tax forms, you have to apply for the scholarships you're eligible for, if you're Pell eligible you need to take that, if there's state money coming to you, you need to take that. What we're doing is last dollar fill-in, but it is a commitment to the low and moderate-income families in this state that they will not have to pay tuition dollars, we will make sure they have the financial aid to cover that. Fifty-six thousand dollars is median income in the state, so it's a commitment to anyone who's at median income and below. Some of this is about an expansion of need-based aid, but to be honest we were already doing a very substantial share of this. So I think this is much more about messaging, if you are in a family that has never had any connection with college all you're reading is that college is really expensive and student loans are terrible. You have no idea what sort of help if any you're going to get. You fill out dozens and dozens of forms, you don't hear anything until after your child has been accepted well into March right. And you know this basically gives you a promise upfront that if you're a low-income family here in the state at a minimum you will get tuition and fees covered right. And that just makes planning so much easier. You still have to cover living expenses. Now for some low-income families their assistance will go beyond tuition and fees. But it is a way of messaging that if you get accepted, if your child is a good student we want them to apply here, and if they get accepted we will do what we can to make sure that they can come. So I'm really excited about the Bucky's Tuition Promise program and it's the type of things we need to be doing for access and [inaudible], so. [ Applause ] And I would give enormous credit to Derek Kindle and our financial aid office who did a lot of great work to put this together and figure out you know how we make it affordable here, so thanks to them. A few other notes let me mention. We're making progress on a lot of searches, the vice chancellor for student affairs, the vice provost for libraries, the vice provost for information technology, the CIO of the university, the associate vice chancellor for finance, and the mortgage center director, among others. And I know all of you out in your departments are in the midst of a lot of searches it's that time of year. We recently reappointed four deans after completing the typical five-year reviews and that includes Dean Mark Markel, Ian Robertson, Karl Scholz, and Kate VandenBosch. Two weeks ago we announced our six first cluster hires selected from I believe 48 proposals and as you know, I want to jumpstart this program. I know there's a lot of pent-up demand for this, so we're doing a second round of cluster hire proposals this month due in. >> April 2nd. >> April 2nd and we'll make a second round of awards before the end of the semester. So if you have people who want to be part of that, those cluster proposals they need to get them in. In February through Patrick's office we sponsored black history month with multiple events that included a hemline event by Emmy award winner Lena Waithe. We also had very good news about one of the programs that we've been designing and we ran for the first time a year ago, which is the Our Wisconsin Program aimed at incoming freshmen. Last year we ran this as a trial program, this year we offered it to all students, we had over 43,000 students who participated. We again did follow-up surveys and the survey results suggest that indeed it does make a difference to some of the ways in which students respond to questions and think about their role with regard to diversity. And I'm excited about that and hopefully we can push this out to even more students. Finally, I think I might've said something about this at the last one, but I want to reaffirm we've got final numbers now. Our applications went through the roof this year, they are up 20% year-over-year. We went from 35,000 to 43,000 applications, this is freshman applications okay. A lot of that is due to going onto the comet [phonetic] appt, which you know brought us up I think about 5, 6, 7% last year and I thought that was the main effect, but we've had an even bigger effect this year. They're up in all categories. Well you've been reading about how international student applications are down, ours are up 17%. Our out of state applicants are up 33% and our instate applicants are up 6%. That's really important in a year when there was no increase in high school graduates in this state. And I partly attribute that to the really good efforts that our admissions office is making doing special outreach to the very high-end, top grade, top test score students, many of whom apply out of state and in the past, have never bothered to apply with us because you have to fill out a whole separate application and it's a lot of work, and maybe some for them we're their safety school. But if we're getting more of those really top student applications that puts us in the mix and makes it possible for us to think about bringing them here, which we need to be doing because if those students stay in Wisconsin they're much more likely to work in Wisconsin after they graduate. So I'm afraid our admissions office is doing a whole lot of extra work and running a little shorthanded, but I think it's really good news for us and I underscore it's particularly good news in a year when we are thinking about small increases in our freshman class size. I can't think of a better world than to have increases in applications and high-quality applications that are going to make that increase in class-size not only very easy to do, but you know my hope here and I think this is really possible from what I've heard, we could actually increase class-size and increase quality at the same time, which is a wonderful position to be in. So it's just another indication of our academic strength and our reputation. So let me stop with that and turn things over to Patrick who is going to talk about some of the things that are happening on the diversity front and then we'll both open up for questions. >> Good afternoon everyone, whoa. That's my theater voice coming through. Thank you, Chancellor Blank for this opportunity and thank you to the UC as well for allowing me to talk a little bit about what we've been up to in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion on our campus. So I'll quickly move through this to get to the part where if you have questions be able to entertain some additional questions for us. Let's see if this is working here. Let's see here. [ Inaudible Comment ] [ Laughter ] Well maybe if you wouldn't mind pushing the button for me. All right, so today I want to provide information on our efforts and activities within the division of diversity, equity and educational achievement. We sit in the provost's office, work very closely with Provost Mangelsdorf. I'd like to share first and foremost the updates from our first ever campus climate survey regarding our student population. I should note that this is the first survey where all some 42,000 students had an opportunity to participate. It was the first time being able to collect this kind of information, so we wanted to get it right so we left no stones unturned in this regard. We will be repeating this survey once every four or five years. And we're in the process of collaborating with our colleagues in the big ten to come up with a common set of questions or modules that we can get some comparative analysis between institution to institution. Our goals for my office and by extension of the university is first and foremost to allow Madison to become a national thought leader in how we engage diversity, equity, inclusion in the context of higher-ed. There's a lot of amazing research that's happening on our campus and a pretty significant financial commitment to diversity and inclusion, so we want to finally recognize that and put that commitment in context given some of the historical challenges we've had regarding how people think about Madison's commitment. Secondly, we want to become better stewards of our resources, so we want to demonstrate that we have that capacity and that we're using those dollars wisely. And of course, we want to strengthen our relationship with our campus partners fully engaging in the shared governance process. Much of what my office has been able to accomplish over the last five years has been a direct result of engaging with our governance groups to create an institutional statement on our commitment to diversity, to begin the process of forming what I'll talk a little bit about later as our DIP inventory, our diversity inventory project, and also thinking through and building the instrument that is our first ever campus climate survey. Just quickly, you all will recall in the spring of 2014 we had an ad hoc diversity planning committee that concluded their work. And Madison we do our strategic planning where we forecast a decade in advance. So this group put together a series of thoughts and ideas that will carry us through 2024. My office that year also began the work of focusing on an implementation document called the real change document where we identified 18 initiatives that are more concrete and specific that allow us to begin doing the work that creates the kind of change we want to see. Often is the case is when you think about diversity inclusion work it's really tempting to kind of run at everything you know all cylinders going, but we wanted to be very strategic and tackle in essence what would be two strategic initiatives over a given period of time. So over nine years using that 10th year as the process to begin reevaluating and writing the summary report. So I'm pleased to share with you that we have wrapped up phase one and we met all of our six initiatives. So if you want to learn more about those you can visit diversity.wiscstudy.edu and you can get an update on that process. So I want to talk a little bit about how Madison is working to improve our campus climate. So this past fall, we released the data from the first-ever survey, but we launch the survey in the fall of 2016 where more than 8,000 students had the opportunity to take the survey. A task force this past summer and late spring as well participated in analyzing the data. A big shout-out to the support we received from APIR Justin Milner's office and the survey center, they were huge partners for us in this. And we released that information on November 1, which was our diversity fall forum. How many of you had a chance to participate in the diversity forum? All right, I'd love to see more of those hands go up, but we'll get there later. Next slide please. Our methodology is s simply that we were aiming for a 20% response rate, so we exceeded that by 1% and we'll take every victory we can get. So 21% response rate, multiple-choice open-ended questions. I should note that students who completed the survey or similar to the overall UW-Madison student population, in other words it was a representative group. Key findings, most students report a positive campus climate. However, when you disaggregate and dig down a little bit in the details those were historically underrepresented from disadvantaged groups report a less positive campus climate, particularly for students of color, our trans nonbinary students, LGBQ students, and students with disability. A couple efforts that my office is directly involved which in many ways were things we were already doing, but quite honestly were affirmed as a result of the data received from the climate survey. We launched this year our diversity liaison project where we're looking for 3 to 5 individuals, faculty members, instructional staff who will serve as a cohort of sorts to begin the kind of work that engages diversity inclusion in terms of latest scholarship, research, and the kind of reflective processes that we want all of us to go through as we think more critically about how we engage these issues. The discussion project which was launched in the School of Education based on research by Dean Diana Hess that work also began this fall. Chancellor already mentioned the Our Wisconsin Program so that was expanded. It was a pilot project in 2016 where we had a thousand students who participated in that, 7,000 students participated in this past fall. So we anticipate that number being constant for us as we move forward. And of course, out of our Dean of Students office bias and response advocacy coordinator, so we have a full-time person dedicated to capturing those experiences. So we have some quantitative analysis to help us think about what next steps we can and should be taking. And then these pieces as I said before, were already in the work but the data revealed some interesting pieces for us. So when we think about this semester on campus we asked students how often do they feel welcome and you see overall 81% of our students say they feel welcome. But when you look at trans nonbinary, LGBQ, students of color, and students with disability you see a different experience. So this is the percentage of those individuals that reported very or extremely often feeling welcome. We also asked how do you feel, how much do you feel your comments and questions are respected in your classes. So important to this group for faculty instructors 79% said they feel respected. Of note, were only in this instance are trans nonbinary students and students with disabilities, the other groups reported similar percentages within that 79%. However, when we look at other students overall a lower number 65%, but even lower for our trans, LGBQ, students of color, and students with disabilities. Ever feel expected to represent your identity in class, overall only 27% shared that, but we see an uptick amongst those other targeted groups. So our trans nonbinary, LGBQ, students of color, students with since disabilities, and our international students. And the reason why we include international students in this one is the next slide is going to be very interesting. Because we asked those who viewed it as a negative experience 40% overall, but if you look at the far right our international students 16% of it said no or I should say 16% thought it was a negative experience, meant the majority of them thought it was a positive experience right. And we can only surmise that it's an opportunity for students to share their culture, their experiences, and what it means to be here in the United States so we, thought that was a fascinating piece of data to share with you. We talk about instances of hostile harassing and intimidating behavior. Fortunately, these numbers are low which is good for us, but we see again upticks amongst these groups here trans nonbinary, LGBQ, students of color, and students with disability. And in particular we noticed those that witnessed their experience and then the pink column those who were on the direct receiving end of that kind of behavior. So we still have some work to do to improve the kinds of interactions that our students are experiencing with regard to hostile, intimidating behaviors. UW-Madison's commitment to diversity, this to me is one of the key pieces that I've been looking for in the sense that as an institution we've heard time and time again the kinds of challenges that our students face while they're here, particularly our students from either first gen, low-income or historically underrepresented communities. That said, 50% of our students say Madison is committed, while 72% say it's important for Madison to have a commitment. When we do this survey again the future I want to see that 50% get closer to that 72%. So we are now no longer in the spaces where we're just talking about anecdotal stories or experiences we now have some baselines that we're able to establish and this was really key for us to get these baselines on some of the pieces we want to move and show improvements on. Next slide. So we talk about valuing diversity and inclusion, 82% of our students say it's important that we value diversity, that's part of one's future. While 80% say they're actively working to create a welcoming and inclusive environment. So here's where we get some dissonance right, so if 80% of our focus and we're working at it and we're not quite experiencing that, we then know there are things we can do better. And so, we're trying to do that in partnership with our colleagues in student life, some of the programming. The chancellor recently made the commitment just this past spring, last spring we launched the opening of the Afro-American, excuse me the Black Cultural Center and our discussions for creating other cultural centers on campus. So these are the kinds of things that go a long way towards showing students that we're mindful of their presence, we value their participation, and we want them to feel a sense of ownership and a sense of belonging at this institution. Next. Our task force had a series of goals and recommendations, so I won't read these to you because they're fairly simple and in many ways, they're affirmations of things that we're already doing. I'll simply move through to the second one. We talk about increasing the number of faculty, staff and students from underrepresented groups. I would sort of characterize this as our effort to gain a kind of critical mass right. Madison you know we've been throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this issue right. And I appreciate that we have not given up that, we truly live up to what it means to be a badger right. I think about the YouTube video don't mess with [inaudible] badger, there's a different word than this, but you'll Google it and figure it out. That said, we know that part of what helps people feel included and welcomed is seeing themselves represented in all facets of the institution. And so, we're really working hard, my colleague Mike Bernard-Donals and I, vice-provost of faculty and staff, are putting energy into helping our deans and other units on campus who are looking to hire additional faculty and or staff of color to do just that. Next slide. We're wanting to increase capacity of students, faculty and staff to respond effectively to hostile harassing and intimidating behavior. And this is important for us because it's not because people don't care about the issues, we all see them when they happen, but many of us and I'll speak for myself often have the deer in headlights moment where it's happening in front of you and you're not quite sure what to do and you don't want to make the situation worse. So oftentimes you don't say or do anything and it's in that silence that sadly affirms the status quo. So we're wanting to build capacity to more attention and gage these opportunities while also promoting dialogue, back up one more, that's right. Promoting dialogue across differences to emphasize mutual respect and understanding. And I'll move quickly through these last two slides. Our continuing efforts our diversity inventory project, so we're trying to get a landscape of what's actually happening on campus with regard to research, programming, outreach. Next slide. And we talk about conversation, so on Monday we'll be in another space where there's another listening session of the full dataset. So if you're interested in digging more into the data fill free to join us at the Union South at 6:30. Again, you can also visit diversity.wisc.edu if you're interested in reading the full 260 some odd page report you can do that, although there's a more concise technical version, about 40 pages that'll walk you through some of this information as well. And then of course engaging shared governance group, so we're here with you all today, we'll be going to the academic staff group, and also our university staff and our ASM students as well. So next steps. Continuing to engage governance, continuing the implementation of the real change process. So phase two of that is going to wrap up for us in 2020. And then of course, we'll use the diversity inventory project once we get that complete to begin the process of analyzing and assessing what we're already doing and the degree to which we can identify synergies and or reallocation of resources to have more bang for our buck. Right, so we're hoping to have those conversations and then of course learning which leverage points that help us create a more inclusive and welcoming environment. You can learn more, there it is diversity.wisc.edu. And if you want to send an e-mail you can send an e-mail to one more slide, there it is and that's me. All right, thank you so much, I'll pause if there are any questions. [ Applause ] >> Questions for Patrick or for myself, I don't think there's a report from the UC today. >> Eric Sandgren, district 113. Patrick I'd like to ask what members of the audience here can do as individual members of the faculty and as part of the faculty senate to assist in moving this along, big projects, little projects, day-to-day? What can you use from us? Oh what can you use for months. >> Well, you may recall I believe it was about two years ago now we actually passed a resolution, we would commit to ongoing professional development and engagement of diversity, inclusion as part of our work as faculty on this campus better understanding our student experience. We have a number of what I'm characterizing as learning communities, learning communities for institutional change in excellence, that's a unit that's under my shop that provides cohort-based opportunities for faculty and staff to wrap their heads around some of these issues. So I encourage you to participate in those. We'll be sending out another call for our diversity liaison project. We are small in our original scope, but to the extent there's more interest of faculty or instructional staff that want to participate. We certainly would love to have you, we're putting our money where our mouth is on that one. We're paying, our offer I should say about $10,000 of support summer salary, we ask for a three-year commitment. So the more we're engaging these issues and the more we're talking about them in our respective communities that's how change happens. So it can't come from on high just alone there needs to be some ownership at the local level. And asking the question with your peers and colleagues is part of that. >> And I want to add to that that I believe that all of the deans are working sort of diversity-related plans and in many cases I know there are individual departments that are trying to think about what conversations, what resources do we need to bring in. And I hope all of you will go back to your departments and raise the questions of what are the issues that we need to talk about, whether it's teaching or whether it's hiring and staff for behavior or whatever you know. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hi, Eric Hoyt, district 49. This is more of a question for you Chancellor and it relates to graduate students. I'm hearing concerns from the grad students in my department communication arts about proposed changes in the seg fee structure. I know this is different, but in the spirit of addressing concerns that students are having that they'll be paying segregated fees earlier than they had in the past. That instead of the third paycheck in the cycle of their payments in the fall that before school starts back up they'd be paying 6 or $700, which wasn't on my radar until multiple students came in who were concerned and just wanted. >> So it's clearly not on my radar or the provost's radar. Bill Karpus, are you here, do you want to address this? We clearly are hearing about it for the first time so. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So I heard about this. >> [Inaudible] yourself. >> Bill Karpus, dean of the Graduate School. I heard about this probably a month ago and this is a bursar's office proposal to bring UW-Madison in alignment with system policy. And since we're in the middle of looking or searching for a new bursar I was told at first that this would be slowed down and looked at again later and that's where I think it is right now, but I'm not sure. But this has been brought to my attention too. The issue is that graduate students would have to pay a chunk of money before they even receive their first paycheck in the fall, so I. >> I'll look into that one. >> All right. >> Thank you for raising that. >> Thank you very much. >> Noah Weeth Feinstein, community environmental sociology. I'd like to bring these two presentations together and it was great to hear about the increase in our applications and it was great to hear that we're committed to a more diverse campus. How are we doing in our applications in terms of recruiting a more diverse student body and where are the areas for a continued growth there? >> So I know that our applications from students of color were up substantially last year, I haven't gotten the numbers on that this year, do you know? >> Twenty-four percent. >> Twenty-four percent increase in students of color. The issue is to translate that into an increase in the number who come right. And that is one reason why I'm trying to push more on the financial aid because disproportionately often our students of color face a little bit more need from where they're coming from, they're a little more likely to be first-generation. So trying to, you know, these things all fit together in some ways right. That the Bucky's Tuition Promise is not aimed just at low to moderate income families in rural Wisconsin, but also to students in Milwaukee or Madison. But you now it's one that clearly the admissions office is very aware of. >> I'll simply add, you know if we're talking about in particular historically underrepresented student groups they have options, they have always had options. And the degree to which our packages are competitive, I know this is something the chancellor is working on and committed to and our admissions team they've put together a pretty solid approach to try and address what from some students' perspective seems as deficient relative to other offers. We're closing the time for instance when a student receives their admissions letter and when they receive the financial aid package, that's huge for us, that was a pretty long gap between when you hear particular students who were applying during early admission by mid-December and we get them their financial aid package by February or March. Well I think they've trimmed that to about a two-week lag time or less, so that's going to have a pretty large impact. And we'll see you know the extent to which more resources increases that yield, but there's also more of a concerted effort to really reach out to these students and let them Madison wants you and we need to do that work. And it takes you know everyone being involved in that process with us. >> Yeah. >> Kurt Paulsen, district 76. Continuing with admissions just wanted to commend the administration and particularly the admissions office for tweeting out to future badgers that current high school students who express their first amendment rights would not be negatively impacted. So it's certainly a time that we think our high school students are acting like leaders and our leaders are acting like high school students. [ Applause ] >> Any other questions or comments? All right, thank you very much Patrick, I appreciate your time. If you turn to page four in your packet you see the minutes of February 5th. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? If not, they are approved as distributed. And I'm now going to recognize Sherry Boeger, the director of EAO who will present the annual reports for both the ombuds office and the employee assistance office. Sherry. >> Thank you Chancellor Blank. I am happy to present both the ombuds report today, as well as the employee assistance report for the academic year 2017. For the ombuds, I'm going to start with the ombuds. This concludes their 15th year, so their 15th anniversary of the founding of the ombuds office. The ombuds office is an impartial, confidential, and independent resource that's available for all employees of the university. So I'd like to highlight some things from this year's report. I'd like to draw attention from 2016 to 2017 the number that the ombuds saw has doubled. Going into 2018 they are already 50% above what they were in 2017. So they are continuing to see an increase in visitors. The proportion of people they see for hostile, intimidating behavior is 25% of their visitors come in around the issues of hostile and intimidating behavior. They have also seen an increase, they've also had an increase in outreach to graduate students that they identified this as a need. They hired someone with that background and they have done more outreach to be available for graduate students. Additionally, they see a disproportionate amount of faculty and academic staff compared to university staff, that is the smallest group that utilizes the ombuds services. They are taking steps to address this by creating a bilingual brochure and poster making it available to all university staff. I know this is just highlights and after I go through the employee assistance report Chuck Snowdon from the ombuds will be up here with me and we'll be happy to answer questions about either office. In your packet as you look at, I think it's document 2727 for the employee assistance annual report, what you will see -- this this first slide in the report you will see reflects all the activity for the employee assistance office for 2016-17. You will see we're up 11% from the previous year and we've seen over 1,054 faculty and staff in this last year. We are also up 33% on management consultations and I'll say a little bit more about that in a minute. Additionally, we are up 21% in our group work, our office works with pairs of people in conflict, as well as groups trying to build a better sense of teamwork and so that is up 21%. So this is the first year we were actually able to pull out or use our software to pull out faculty data. So the next few slides that you'll see in your packet reflect faculty data only. What I was actually surprised to see was that faculty tend to use us for workplace issues. Over 90% of the time when faculty uses employee assistance and this is for the last fiscal year it is around workplace issues. So that would include management consultation, which was up 33% for faculty, as well as workplace issues. So when a faculty comes in and this could include deans, directors who may come in to use this for this service it's to get consultation on how to be more effective in doing performance management with employees. It's to talk about colleagues in the workplace that are having difficulty getting along. It's to plan for a difficult conversation that they may have. And so to me and this lines up with our new performance management system coming into place in the last two years, it makes sense that people are using the services for this. With the low percent of people using us for personal issues what I would like to draw your attention to is there is a trend with our healthcare providers and that trend is not necessarily a positive trend. With healthcare providers through our health insurance there is a longer wait time. And so I bring this to your attention because we have a valuable resource that's available to all faculty and staff, including partners, spouses that reside in the household for personal issues. Any number of personal issues ranging from stress to marital to anxiety, depression or high utilizer. So I call that to your attention as you look at what you can do to help increase utilization. If you have a colleague sharing with you and they're having a hard time getting in to see a provider, please consider that as an option. The last thing I want to draw your attention to is that on that as you were coming in today you received, I think most people received a handout and it talked about Silver Cloud. Employee assistance has partnered with University Health Services on campus and provide an online treatment module that addresses mild anxiety, depression, stress and body image. It's available, people can access it 24/7 at your convenience. It's a great resource, we encourage you to tell others about it. Additionally, on that handout that you received when you came in is several other wellness resources that are available to faculty and staff. So I am going to stop there and invite Chuck to come up and join me from the ombuds and we'll entertain any questions you may have for either office. >> Are there any questions on these two reports? >> Yes, Noah Weeth Feinstein, community environmental sociology. I was disturbed to hear about a year ago a story of a graduate student who had consulted ombuds regarding a conflict with a supervising faculty member and the ombudsperson who worked with them gave advice that was, it was sort of a tough it out advice. Like that's the way these situations are, the faculty student relationships are challenging. And I felt like our culture is changing and we have a shifting culture around for instance abusive behavior and I'm wondering how the ombuds office is seeking to make sure that the volunteer providers who we're all grateful are keeping up-to-date with the shifts in campus culture? >> I'm not aware of that particular incident that you're describing and don't recall even hearing about it in our discussions. But our goal is to help empower the people that come to visit us to give them tools that they can go and try to work through conflicts or work through things on their own. Sometimes with some of the employees for example we will look at an environment and there really isn't very much that can be done at the time. And if someone is close to retirement that might be a bit of advice to ask them to put in the mix, have you looked at what your retirement options are. I agree with you as a former supervisor of graduate students that good graduate mentoring is really important, that we find a lot of disgruntlement among students. Although, I know my own experience as a graduate was anything but happy. It's a tough time for students to be in where you're under pressure all the time. We do our best to try to help students and other employees do the best they can in the work environment that they have. Sometimes things just can't be changed and if that's the way it appears we can recommend that someone find a new advisor, move to a different job if they're in a workplace, and so forth. We do try to keep up-to-date with things. >> But you do feel like the volunteer ombuds are all apprised of shifts in the way that the campus responds to? >> Yes, very much so. We've been very active Rosa Garner from our office for example has been very active in developing a hostile, intimidating behavior training, that it's going to be rolled out very soon. We are very much involved with issues like this and we keep ourselves informed by meeting annually with the compliance office, meeting twice a year with human resources, going out and visiting lots of other places, so we try to keep ourselves as informed as we possibly can, but we're not perfect people. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else? >> I don't think so. Thank you very much, I appreciate your work on those reports. We are now on page 17 and I'm going to recognize Professor Anja Wanner who will present proposed changes to the campus diversity and climate committee. This is a first reading so there is no vote. Anja. >> Thank you, Chancellor. Good afternoon, you have in your materials faculty document 2728 which is a proposal to modify the charge of the campus diversity and climate committee commonly referred to as the CDCC. As noted in your written materials in more detail there are a number of reasons for these changes. Perhaps most notable among these is the fact that the CDCC created as the originally diversity oversight committee in the late 1990's and renamed and restructured 10 years later actually predates the Division of Diversity, Equity and Educational Achievement DDEEA, which was created in January 2011. Thus some parts of the CDCC's charge as currently written in FPMP reflect a time when there was no administrative office to perform tasks related to diversity and inclusion on campus. Over the course of the last year or two the university committee, the CDCC itself, and many others have discussed ways to update the CDCC's charge to recognize the significant changes in administrative structures over time and to shape the CDCC into a more typical chapter 6 committee that advises and supports the work of an administrative unit providing shared governance input and disseminating information as well. Most of these changes before you are suggestions made by the CDCC itself to eliminate functions that had become outdated, duplicative or otherwise confusing. The CDCC proposed changes that recognize the limitations of the CDCC's resources, including creating a subcommittee structure to make better use of CDCC's members' time and talents and generally to facilitate the CDCC performance of its functions. However, the subcommittee structures listed in your materials that's on page 19 is simply illustrative. The final version of this document on which you will vote next month I hope will not include the specific subcommittees. Another proposed change to the CDCC functions, remove specific charges to meet twice per year with the chancellor and provost and periodically with deans and directors combining them into one charge to meet with campus leadership to discuss policy and progress on climate and diversity as every other chapter 6 committee does. And finally, also matching other chapter 6 committees the charge to work collaboratively with and advise she chief diversity officer's office, that's Patrick Sims' office, was moved to the top of a list of functions highlighting the importance of the shared governance role now that the DDEA exists. The faculty co-chair of the CDCC Professor Linda Oakley will be with us at next month's senate meeting and I look forward to your comments on this first reading. >> All right, we're open to any comments or discussion about the proposed recommended changes to the CDCC. Are there any? If as you look at this and bring it back to your staff there are any suggestions, please get them back to the UC, they will make whatever edits and changes are necessary between now and next month. And then move towards a final adoption next month hopefully okay. Let me then again recognize Professor Anja Wanner who's going present a proposal to create the committee on disability access and inclusion for a first reading, again no vote. >> You also have in your materials faculty document 2729 which is a proposal to roll together a number of committees dealing with access and accommodation, expand and rationalize their charge to eliminate gaps and connect that new committee to our senior access and inclusion officer, that is our campus' ADA coordinator Cathy Trueba who is sitting, who also serves as our director of compliance. Again, as noted, more detail -- you will find more detail in your written materials. There are currently several groups that work on various aspects of accommodation, accessibility and inclusion on campus, including governance committees, workgroups, offices and programs and of course the ADA coordinator. The proposal in front of you focuses the work of these various individuals and groups into one shared governance committee to provide advice on accessibility matters and advocate for the diverse needs of the disability community at UW-Madison. The proposal is the result of extensive consultation with the existing committees and workgroup, and other stakeholders. And I look forward to your comments on this first reading either today or via e-mail if you consult with other people in your units. >> Are there comments on this proposal? All right, in that case again, get your comments to the UC if you and if there are others in your groups who will be particularly interested in this committee you should let them look through this as well. Let me recognize Professor Noah Feinstein who will present the report on nominations for election to the divisional committees and the GFEC and that's on page 25 of your materials. Noah. >> On behalf of the academy I am pleased to announce the nominees for divisional executive committee and grad faculty executive committee. Elections will be held between April 2nd and April 15th. Thank you all of you who fielded e-mails, pleading e-mails from the committee on committee and from your colleagues and seriously considered the possibility. We'll be getting back to you if you said no this time. There's nothing else to say about this. >> The slates that Noah has just presented combined with those that we presented last month are the full slates that are going to be on your election ballots next month. When does that open? >> April 2nd. >> April 2nd. And I should note that the faculty senate has the right to make additional nominations to any of these elected committees, so I should ask whether there are any nominations from the floor. Seeing none we will go forward with the slate as presented, thank you Noah. Let me return to Professor Anja Wanner who is going to present information on senate redistricting. >> This is really technical stuff. In faculty document 2731 you have the proposed faculty senate districts to take effect with next month's elections. Please note that late this morning we uploaded a corrected version of this document. The earlier version was missing a few departments, but they were included in the totals so just not in the breakdown. If the version you are looking at includes computer science you have the most recent one. FPMP 203D indicates that every three years the Office of the Secretary of the Faculty shall provide data for the university committee to review the apportionment of faculty into districts and recommend any reapportionment that seems necessary or desirable. That data which you have in faculty document 2731 results from information extracted from an old system listing faculty members by department and their senate district as of December 1st. Faculty members with more than one departmental affiliation may choose which district to be in. As I noted, the system used for this is old and being retired, thus there may be some inaccuracies in the data but we have contacted nearly all departments, especially those slated to have changes and we believe that this accurately reflects the appropriate apportionment of senators across departments. The changes overall are pretty minor, there are three. A new district 22 Planning and Landscape Architecture was formed by combining district 7 Landscape Architecture and district 76 Urban and Regional Planning. History of Science was separated from district 82 now just Medical History and Bioethics and folded into district 60 History, reflecting the move of that department. Since the 2015 apportionment four districts lost a senator and five districts gained one. >> This does not take a vote, but I should ask if there are any corrections or concerns relating to the information that's in front of you in this document. Seeing no concerns we'll move on to the next agenda item, we're now on page 30 of your document. Recognize Professor Anja Wanner who's going to present a proposal regarding the policy on academic staff as advisors for a first reading and she'll explain why this is your first reading even though you've seen an earlier version before. Anja. >> This is the second first reading if such a thing exists. The next item is a document a version of which you have already seen and I presented for first reading because it has been changed quite considerably. Faculty document 2700 was brought to you for a first reading last October. At that time our proposal was to clarify the language of FPMP 305H to reflect what we understood to be common practice across campus regarding the role of academic staff and graduate student committees. Specifically, the proposal at the time indicated that academic staff could serve on graduate committees in any role except that of sole advisor. After that first reading it was brought to our attention that there are scientists on campus whose job responsibilities actually require them to serve as major advisors and sole advisors. So this item was on your agenda in November 2017 with that change, that is allowing certain federal scientists to serve as sole major advisors. However, shortly before the November senate meeting it was brought to our attention that are clinical faculty in the health sciences who also serve as major advisors. So we pulled this item from the agenda for further study. The version before you now does not specify job categories that may serve as advisors, but rather, it indicates a process whereby qualified academic staff regardless of title can service as major advisors. Because this version is to our minds substantially different from that presented in October we are resubmitting it for discussion as a first reading and I look forward to your input. >> I know we had a lively discussion on this in October, are there any comments on the revised version here? Yeah. >> Bob Witt, district 41, engineering physics. My department would like to offer, propose an amendment to this motion. >> So we're not voting on this, so you don't need to amend it. But if you have changes you want to see you might state them and then. >> Certainly. >> The UC will work with you to incorporate them. >> We have a number of, have had a number of academic staff who hold the title research professor, which requires a rather rigorous process to reach that level. We don't feel it's necessary for such a person to undergo another review, they are already serving, they're already managing large federal grants, they are mentoring many graduate students. We don't see the point of them having to go through that process again. So I understand that the intent was to say or was not to make the proposal contingent on any particular job title. But for someone who has reached that status we feel it's redundant to make them go to through that process again in order to be able to act as major advisors. >> Yeah, you want to speak to that? And it looks like Ruth wants to speak to it as well. >> Yeah, I can speak to it. >> You want to address it? >> Ruth Litovsky, university committee. So one of the issues is that the culture across departments varies tremendously. And we felt that there was a need to protect the graduate student from situations in which academic staff don't regularly come to faculty meetings where important decisions are made about graduate education. And when they are left out of the loop students can fall between the cracks. It really varies by department, so we do look forward to input on language that would both continue to protect grad students while at the same time give autonomy to departments where the best practice already includes academic staff participating in all aspects of graduate education. But there's so much variability across campus that we have to discuss that pretty carefully. >> So I will ask that the UC consult with you as they look at these changes if that's acceptable? Yeah, sure. >> I would just like to point out that we would not require anyone to undergo another round of review or that we would want this that a department has written policies. So if your department has that as a written policy then that is something that would fall under the policy here. >> So just for my understanding sorry. That if my department had a policy in place that an academic staff member with a title research professor had already met the obligations of this policy, then nothing further would have to occur. >> Yeah it just says that the department needs to have a written policy. >> Okay. >> So I think your department would absolutely be covered. >> Okay. >> Assuming it has a written policy. >> If not that will be a problem. >> Yeah. >> Karl Broman, district 20, biostatistics and medical informatics. I had a question about sometimes there's a separation between a department and a training program and whether a training program might separately give a staff member this advisory role, I mean does it always go through a departmental executive committee or could a PhD training program make this? [ Background Conversations ] >> We might, it is intended that training programs have that same right, so if that doesn't come out clearly then we will make that clear. >> You're looking at the third paragraph on page 30, yeah you might look at that paragraph and see that satisfies you and if not. >> We will make that yeah. >> The paragraph seems to only talk about department executive committees and not mention programs. >> We will, it is intended so we will make that clear. >> Thank you. [ Background Conversations ] >> Chad Alan, excuse me Chad Alan Goldberg district 71. Given the lateness of the hour and the time sensitive nature of item 14, I move to suspend the rules and take up item 14. >> This requires a second and a two-thirds vote in order to move immediately to another item, is there a second? >> Second. >> And so we discuss or do we go straight into an vote? We go straight into a vote. All right, so all those in favor of leaving this point at the agenda and jumping to the last item in the agenda which is the resolution that Chad wants to present indicate by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed. I'm going to take that as a two-thirds vote. All right, so we move to the last item on the agenda and you are now on page 42 of your document and I will call on Professor Chad Goldberg, district 71. I think the resolution speaks for itself, it lays out very clearly the rationale ahead of the resolved clause. >> You have to [inaudible] first. >> I'm sorry yeah. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. I move to adopt the resolution calling on President Ray Cross to reaffirm commitment to shared governance. >> And is there a second? >> Second. >> All right, if you want to speak to it. >> Thank you. So I think the resolution speaks for itself in terms of the whereas clauses. I'll simply note that this resolution has the general support of the UW-Madison AEUP chapter, although I think some members of that chapter will propose some amendments. It has also been endorsed by United faculty and academic staff, American Federation of Teachers Local 223, and I've discussed the resolution with the university committee. I think it also has their general support though they may also want to propose some amendments to the wording. >> We have a motion and a second, is there discussion? >> Ruth Litovsky, university committee. So we are asking the board of regents and Ray Cross to work with us in collaboration and in community and to work with us in a respectful manner, and to minimize confrontation. In light of that, being our hope and our expectation I respectfully suggest a friendly amendment or two that maintain the spirit of the document, but tone down the language just a little bit. So there are a couple of changes. The first one is in the second whereas, so instead whereas a history of repeated injuries impelled the UW-Madison faculty senate to declare no confidence, etcetera change that to whereas the UW-Madison faculty senate on May 2nd, 2016 declared no confidence, so just removing that phrase. And the second change is under be it resolved that, just scroll down a little bit. >> So I'm going to let you go through all of these so we know what they are and then we're going to take them one by one. >> Yeah. >> Because I think it's cleaner to vote on each of them separately than to vote on a whole slate in different places. >> Did you want to go through the? >> Well why don't you lay them out so everyone knows what the. >> Yeah, there's only one more which is be it resolved that and then the faculty senate of the university of Wisconsin Madison hereby demands, replace the word demands with expects. >> All right. >> Those are the two changes. >> Let's take each of those. The first change is in the second clause and let me see if I'm saying this back, just says whereas the UW-Madison faculty senate on May 2nd, 2016 declared no confidence in President Cross and takes out the phrase a history of repeated injuries impelled is that correct? Is there a second to that amendment? >> Second. >> Discussion on that amendment. >> So it's declared yeah, take out the two and. >> Yeah. >> Chad Alan Goldberg, district 71. So just to be consistent I think you would also have to remove the word, the words to call and say called on them. >> Yeah, yeah, we will get the tenses right. [ Inaudible Comment ] [ Laughter ] [ Inaudible Comment ] Yeah and then on the next sentence it's then and called on them rather than to call. Are there comments on this amendment? If not, if you are ready to take a vote on the amendment, all those in favor of making this change to the second whereas clause indicate by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Nay. >> That change goes through. You then have proposed a second change to the be it resolved clause in the second line that changes the word hereby demands that President Cross honor his earlier pledge to hereby expects that President Cross honor his earlier pledge. Is there a second? >> Second. >> To that proposed amendment? Discussion on that amendment? >> Noah Weeth Feinstein, community, environmental sociology. I can't support that change. The language of expectation is simply too ambiguous. I'm not sure what grounds we necessarily have to expect it and it doesn't read as a request, a strong request to me. I could see something else, but expects I can't support that. >> Other? >> Steph Tai, district 44. I'm in agreement with Noah. Expects just sort of suggests a sort of very passive kind of sense and I think the proposal by Chad is just sort of aimed for something a little more affirmative. >> Ruth Litovsky, university committee. So Noah would you have another word in mind that's active, but calls upon? [ Inaudible Comment ] Requests, requests, calls upon. >> Urges. >> Urges. Any opinions from the members in the room? [ Inaudible Comment ] So, can I make a friendly amendment to my amendment? >> So we can do one amendment to the amendment which will then itself require a second discussion all right. [ Inaudible Comment ] >> So the. >> If you propose a change that everyone is okay with, then we can treat it as a consent item, but it has to be unanimously, everyone has to be unanimously agreed to this change, otherwise we treat it as an amendment to the amendment. >> So can I informally poll? >> She proposes to change her amendment [inaudible] and we still vote on the amendment. >> Right. >> That's how [inaudible]. >> Yes, that's right. >> I can withdraw my amendment. >> So yeah, so what do you, tell me what you want me to do. Yeah. Is there any objection to changing the proposed amendment expects to a proposed amendment that says. >> Calls upon. >> Calls upon President Cross to honor his earlier pledge? Is there any object to that change in the amendment and if everyone agrees with that we will then vote on that? Okay I take that as a consent item, so the amendment is now the faculty senate of the University of Wisconsin Madison hereby calls upon President Cross to honor his earlier pledge to protect and respect faculty governance. Is there and the secondary is fine with this change? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right we're now discussing this amendment. Is there any other comments on it? >> Kurt Paulsen, district 76. I want to speak with my colleagues that the word demand seems more appropriate to this context. After a vote of no confidence and then to be disrespected as reported by public radio, which is good to be part of UW-Madison I think at some point in time a more active word like demands is probably required. >> Any other comments on the amendment? All right, we are going to vote on the amendment, here are the changes, the word demands to calls upon. All those in favor of that change indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> All those opposed. >> No. >> I think we're going to take a hand count on that one. All those in favor of the change indicate by raising your hand and keep them up while we count. I actually upon seeing hands think it's. >> I don't think [inaudible]. >> Yeah, what do you think? >> I think it's pretty clear. >> I think it's clear seeing the hands, I think the amendment passes. All right. All right, we now have an amended document in front of you to, two amendments have been adopted. Are there any further comments on the proposal? >> I'd like to offer an amendment. >> Identify yourself. >> Oh, sure Tom O'Guinn, Business 24. This is a very short amendment. We call on UW-Madison faculty, excuse me. Oh, this would be an additional whereas I suppose. Yeah, it'll be after the resolve. Yeah, I'll just do that yeah. Yeah, why not okay. >> So some said where are you putting it. >> I think it's a further resolved. Yeah, I'm ambivalent on it okay. I'll read it to you and you can tell me. We call on UW-Madison faculty to uphold our right to shared governance and affirm our duty to speak, act and govern. The idea -- oh, do I say anything now or? >> Yeah, can you say that again. >> Yes, it's up there. We call on UW-Madison faculty to uphold our right to shared governance and affirm our duty to speak, act, and govern. >> All right. Is there a second to this amendment? >> Second. >> I've got a second. All right, you want to speak to the amendment? >> Yeah, also AAUP Madison, we believe that this amendment does two things. It frames what's left of shared government in terms of a right and it affirms that we have a responsibility as faculty to protect that. It sort of formally says we both have something in this. >> All right, are there comments on this amendment? >> Peter Adamcyzk, mechanical engineering, district 39. My only comment is that we are not defined, so we should say the UW-Madison faculty senate again. >> Is that a friendly proposed change? >> It's a suggestion to the [inaudible]. >> Would the proposer be happy with that change, could we make that a consent change or not? You're fine with that? So if no one objects that clearly clarifies what's being said rather than the ambiguous we. Any other comments on the amendment? If you're reading to vote, all those in favor of adding this further resolution clause indicate by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed. >> No. >> I think the ayes have that. Yeah, I think it's pretty clear. All right we're back to the full and amended document at this point, are there further comments on the document? If not, I will assume you are ready to vote. All those in favor of the resolution as amended indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> All those opposed. >> No. >> The motion passes. All right, we are now back onto our previously scheduled agenda and I'm going to assume that we completed our discussion of the, make sure I got the right reference here, of the changes in the policy of academic staff as advisors. If anyone has any further conversation on that please be in touch with the UC as they make changes to that. Let us now turn to page 31 and this one we get to vote on. I recognize Professor Anja Wanner who will move adoption of changes to FPP chapter 4 that had their first reading last month. >> I move adoption of faculty document 2723, which makes changes to several sections of FPMP chapter 4. These changes are intended to clarify and simplify divisional membership, bring the FPMP in line with practice on some points, and modify practice on other points. These changes were discussed at last month's senate meeting and are also described in the bullets on page 31 of your agenda materials. The university committee did not receive any comments on the text presented for the first reading. >> This does not require a second since the resolution comes from the UC. Is there any further discussion of the proposal to make these changes to FPP chapter 4? Seeing none I will assume you are ready for a vote. All those in favor of the proposed changes to chapter 4 indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Let me now recognize Professor Anja Wanner who will present a proposal to create the immigration and international issues committee for a first reading. >> My script says hello again. You have in your materials faculty document 2732, which is a draft of a new chapter 6 shared governance committee focused on immigration and international issues. In December 2016, this body passed faculty document 2660 a resolution supporting UW-Madison's undocumented students. A couple of months later also response to national concern surrounding immigration and international issues in general and DACA in particular, the chancellor charged an advisory committee with providing input on immigration and international issues with regard to our students. This group has done very important work, its chair Cindy I-Fen Cheng is here and will provide some additional context in just a few seconds. What you have before you is intended to institutionalize the work of this important advisory committee into a standing committee with a slightly broader scope to include employees, as well as students. In this time of increased uncertainty with regards to immigration and international issues it is important to send the message that we are addressing the needs of all members of our campus community and especially our most vulnerable students and employees. I look forward to your input on this first reading. >> This is a first reading, so we're looking for comments and proposals and discussion of this. Did you want to speak to the motion at all? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, go up to the. >> Sorry for the awkwardness I'm not used to this. I just. >> Identify yourself before you speak yeah. >> Sorry, my name is Cindy I-Fen Cheng, don't know what district I am, I'm the director of Asian American studies program on campus and history. So I had the opportunity, this really great opportunity to be able to work with the chancellor, the provost, and others to be able to explicitly adopt an immigration policy for campus that helps explicitly state the protection for undocumented students and staff. And last April we were able to convene for the first time just to kind of a meet and greet and set the agenda. Our main work began this semester where we had three meetings throughout the semester and we know that we started this semester in kind of a rocky patch with the announcement of the rescission of DACA within six months, which is in fact today. But that it is now in the courts, so it kind of renders today's date a little ambiguous. We tried to kind of narrow what we wanted to do even though it's immigration and international issues. Because of the current situation we completely dedicated our semester to working on increasing protection for undocumented students. And so, we held our very first free clinic on campus which was kind of a big deal. We worked with the Immigrant Justice Center different community groups, and the Multicultural Student Center hosted it, Colectivo donated coffee for the event. We were able to work with John Lucas in putting together a website which was a huge endeavor to kind of consolidate resources. That is now also posted on various different websites. And also, we have now in the works of securing the first ever staff that will dedicate its endeavors to undocumented students. And we're also working on creating greater funding opportunities for undocumented communities so. >> So what this essentially does is creates a formal governance committee out of what was the ad hoc committee that was put together last, a year ago. >> Yeah. >> Is there, are there other comments or questions that people want to raise as this first reading, time to express any concerns or changes? All right, if anyone does have changes again bring this back to the people in your districts who would be interested, be in touch with the UC and they will bring this back for a second reading. We are now on to what is now the last item on the agenda on page 35, having cleaned up chapter 4 we're now on chapter 6, and I'm going to recognize Professor Anja Wanner who will present a proposal to make certain primarily housekeeping changes to FPP chapter 6, again a first reading without a vote. >> This is the last time you'll hear from me today. You have in your materials faculty document 2733 which contains a number of housekeeping and other relatively minor updates to FPMP chapter 6. As you know, we are going through FPMP chapter by chapter to make necessary edits. You voted on chapter 4 changes earlier in this meeting and you made changes to chapters 1 and 2 earlier this year. This time the changes proposed all relate to the introductory parts of chapter 6, that is the bulk of chapter 6 lists and describes the various shared governance committees. However, the first several sections of chapter 6 deal with meta-information about all shared governance committees and that is where we are now suggesting changes. The specific changes are summarized in your materials and are also spelled out in detail. A summary of the summary is that these changes reorganize the material in these sections thematically, clarify the role of the university committee, change the word joint to shared, and adjust references to classified staff to university staff. One specific change to note is that these modifications move search and screen committees out of the listing of committees and instead include them in the section on types of committees. In addition, we have proposed language to clarify the role of shared governance in these committees. I look forward to your input on this first reading. >> Are there comments or issues in this document? >> Betsy Stovall, district 63, mathematics. Two items in it seem so minor to me and I wanted to ask more about the rationale. So the first is then 6.01F which specifies who selects members, the scope of the authority of committees, rules and regulations and such. I wondered if you could say more about why the university committee was added here. And the second one 6.09D and E, so this says that if committees change their policies and procedures, then this needs to be announced or reported to the university committee or the chancellor and those have also been. [ Background Conversations ] >> So the first one 601F, the insertion of university committee is that that is actually called for by other parts of FPMP, that the university committee selects or appoints committee members. That's my understanding, so that's just to put this into, in line with what FPMP says at other places, that's my understanding. That's correct. The other one I didn't quite catch, so I'm sorry, which one was that? >> Six-point o nine. >> Six o nine. >> It's removing something that has never happened. >> Yeah, this one? >> Which one? >> E? >> E. >> Was it E, the one you had asked about? >> So items D and E are related, they're both related to changes in the policies. >> Yeah. >> Committees keep their own policies [inaudible]. >> So in E it's the committee has its own policies and procedures and never, that is just never reported, they just have their own. And E is something that has just never happened I'm told. Steve's institutional memory is certainly better than mine on this. >> Chad Alan Goldberg, district 71. I had a similar concern about 6.04 C and D and the way in which shared governance principles may or may not be applied here. And I'm wondering if Anja if you could say more about why we're leaving the door open here to having them not applied in these particular cases. And what exactly that means, what would that entail? >> So, it's my understanding that for these ad hoc committees so not chapter 6 committees we just, they are not put together by shared governance, by the same principles as shared governance groups, is that? [ Multiple Speakers ] Yeah, why don't you speak Steve. >> Yeah. >> This is actually a new section and what it is intended to say is, both of these are intended to say that shared governance will be -- the application of shared governance will be analyzed before an ad hoc group or a search and screen committee is put together to determine the composition of those committees. So actually, I'm now looking at it and thinking that maybe we should change the word to what shared governance principles, so it would be the objectives and responsibilities of an ad hoc committee will define what a shared or which shared governance principles will be applied to the group. Right now we don't have any language at all that guarantees there will be any shared governance applied to the composition of the membership of the group and this was intended to address that. >> And Chad Alan Goldberg, district 71. Just to follow up, so I always get a little confused when passive voice is used here. So can I just ask for clarification about who's making the determination here, it's not clear to me from this language and if the determination is being left up to somebody other than the faculty it seems to me that maybe this language should be adjusted so that the consent of the faculty senate is required. >> The implied subject there is the appointing authority, so we can change that. So it depends on who, sometimes the chancellor puts together a committee, sometimes university committee puts it together, but we can put something specific in there for the agent. >> Thank you. >> Judith Burstyn, district 48. So I want to speak that I appreciate that it appears that you're trying to add a role for shared governance in these contexts and in that context, I think it is important to at least mention who might make that assessment. Because one would want to be want the shared governance groups, such as the university committee and the faculty senate to be involved where that's appropriate. So I think it's very important to designate. And that I agree with Chad that just using the passive voice with no explicit implication as to who makes that assessment is a problem and just leaves open an opportunity for anyone to say oh it doesn't meet a requirement. >> I took a note. >> Yeah, that's clear, they'll take this advice. Any other comments? >> Betsy Stovall, district 63, mathematics. So I wonder if you would consider, so in 6.01F. So, I would feel a little more comfortable if it said something along the lines of the faculty, the faculty senate or the university committee. Somehow, if the faculty senate were also, if this were as authorized by the faculty senate or some language along those lines. >> So I would add to that, I think what's not clear here. >> Yeah. >> There are many committees for which there are explicit statements in FPMP as to who is the appointing body. And so, somehow you need to have appointing body mentioned in this context. Because if I understand correctly, these are groups that may convene something and again, it's another place where you need an explicit connection to some existing committee. >> It sounds like the reference needs to be back to the FPP which at different points in time asks different groups to make appointments and that's what I'm hearing. >> [Inaudible] you want the [inaudible], but you also want explicitness, so we will get it. >> Yeah. >> And to some extent the university committee plays a role right and an oversight role in this context right. So as long as that's clear. >> Yeah. Any other comments on this document? As you look through it again, if there are other changes or things that you see which you have questions, please be in touch with the university committee in the very near future. As you will note, we did a lot of first readings this month which says that you're all expected back in April for second readings and final votes on all of this. Other than that, we're at the end of the agenda, so thank you all for coming and we'll see you in a month.