>> I am told we have a quorum. So I'm going to call the meeting to order. Can I ask all the faculty to rise as you're able for the reading of the memorial resolutions? Let me call on Professor Stephen Johnson to present the memorial resolution for Professor Emeritus Mark Brownfield. >> Doctor Mark Brownfield became a professor in the department of comparative biosciences within the newly established school of veterinary medicine at UW Madison in 1982. His most important work was in neuroendocrine regulation of feeding, metabolism, body fluids, and cardiovascular function. His development of antibodies to localize brain receptors significantly impacted neuroscience. In 2016 he was nominated for the university's award for mentoring undergraduate research students. He'll be fondly remembered for his caring spirit, supportive and friendly manner, patience, and generosity with students and colleagues. Professor Brownfield is survived by his son Andrew, daughter Marialisa, and their mother Jane Mahoney. Thank you. >> Thank you. And Professor Brownfield's daughter and son, and a whole host of colleagues, are here in the back. Thank you all for coming. [ Applause ] Let me recognize Professor Kyle Stiegert who's going to present memorial resolutions for two Emeritus professors from agriculture and applied economics: Truman Graf and Phil Harris. >> Professor Emeritus Truman F Graf died on August 7, 2017 at the age of 94. After serving as a dive bomber pilot in the Navy Air Corps during World War II, Professor Graf received BS, MS, and PhD degrees from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and joined the faculty of the department of agriculture and economics in 1953. Combining solid research and effective outreach, he quickly became one of the most highly respected dairy marketing analysts in the United States. Following his retirement in 1985, Professor Graf devoted many years to international dairy development, providing counsel to government agencies in 12 countries on 4 continents. >> Can I say that Professor Graf's two sons, Eric and Peter, are here, and thank the two of them for coming. [ Applause ] >> Professor Phillip E Harris joined the faculty as an assistant professor in the department of agriculture and applied economics in July, 1979. He retired as a full professor in May, 2016. He passed away on January 12, 2018. During his career, Professor Harris touched the lives of thousands through his teaching and extension programming. His lasting legacy is the establishment of the land grant university tax education foundation, and his editorship of 15 annual national income tax workbooks. The workbooks continue to be used by more than 29,000 professional income tax preparers across 26 states serving millions of clients. >> Let me call upon Professor Jerry Dempsey to present the memorial resolution for Professor Emeritus William Reddan. >> Bill Reddan died on December 18, 2017 at the age of 90. After serving in both World War II and the Korean wars, Bill was a UW professor of population and health science and kinesiology for 30 years. Bill was widely recognized as the founding father of the sport of soccer in Wisconsin and at the university, beginning in 1964. Together with his late wife Betty, they made the uniforms, built the goal posts, transported the athletes, and served as a loving family for the players, their efforts culminating in a national collegiate championship in 1995. As an [inaudible] Bill served as a researcher of exercise and respiratory physiology, a teacher of anatomy and physiology, and most importantly as a key advisor to most of the 68 pre and postdoctoral trainees that went through the Rankin Laboratory of Pulmonary Medicine. To these trainees Bill always had a twinkle in his eye and a genuine love of helping people. Bill Reddan was a good humble man, and a dependable and loyal friend who lived a full life in the service and betterment of many of us. Good on you [inaudible]. >> Thank you all very much for those who came for the memorial resolutions. You are free to stay, but you are also free to go, if you would like. Thanks for coming. >> Today is a special day because we get to present the Hilldale Awards. We're honoring four faculty members who have been selected by the divisional executive committees to receive the Hilldale Award in recognition of their distinguished careers in teaching, research, and service while members of the faculty of the University of Wisconsin here in Madison. And this is the trifecta. It's people who have done it all, and done it well. Let me invite Professor David Zimmerman of the department of English to come forward to introduce the awards, and to present Professor Leslie Bow, recipient of the Hilldale Award in the arts and humanities, and to accept the award on her behalf. Professor Bow cannot be here this evening. >> Leslie Bow is out of town today so I'm thrilled as associate chair of the English department to accept this award on her behalf. Bow has been a faculty member here at UW Madison since 2002 with a joint appointment in English and Asian American studies. She's established herself as one of the foremost scholars of Asian American cultural, literary, and feminist studies. She has an impressively rich publication record, and academic reputation that reaches across a number of fields, including American literature, American studies, Asian American studies, gender and women's studies, critical race studies, and most recently visual cultures. She has written two widely influential books, the benchmark mode of publication in our field, along with dozens of articles. As one scholar reviewing her work has put it, Bow is one of the world's most talented and original interdisciplinary scholars of race, gender, and identity. Bow's first book is titled "Betrayal and Other Acts of Subversion: Feminism, Sexual Politics, Asian American Women's Literature." Published in 2001, it showed how Asian American feminism is critical to theorizing race and gender in the US. The book earned immediate acclaim, and continues to provide a model for scholars seeking to break through the conceptual and political impasses resulting from overly rigid notions of identity. It remains a touchstone text in Asian American studies, and a featured work in university courses across the nation. Bow's second book is titled "Partly Colored: Asian Americans and Racial Anomaly in the Segregated South." This book helped launch the study of comparative racialization, a field new to American studies, earning an honorable mention for the 2010 cultural studies book award. "Partly Colored" focuses on Asian Americans and American Indians in the Jim Crow south classified as neither black nor white. They did not fit easily in to the strict logic of segregation. Where should they sit on public busses? Where were their drinking fountains? "Partly Colored" was hailed by scholars across a host of disciplines as a groundbreaking work that has moved critical comparative race studies far beyond the simple axes of black and white that have dominated the field. Bow, it is worth noting, has produced, "southern literature of her own." A creative nonfiction piece of hers published in the "Southern Review" appears on a number of southern literature course syllabi across the nation. This summer Bow will complete her third monograph, "Racist Love: Asian Americans and the Pleasures of Fantasy." This book examines popular depictions of Asian Americans that appeal to viewer's cultural fantasies. Fantasies that are energized by intersecting gender, ethnic, national, and class desires. Those productivity and originalities enriched by her passion dedication to the university, and to faculty and students of color across campus, her energetic commitment to mentoring and advocating for junior faculty in Asian American studies, her success as a teacher in the ethnic studies classroom, and her stream of influential publications make her contributions truly exceptional. On her behalf, thank you. [ Applause ] >> Professor Chuck Kaspar, chair of the department of bacteriology, will present Professor Rick Gourse, recipient of the Hilldale Award in the biological sciences. >> Good afternoon. It's my pleasure and honor to introduce Professor Rick Gourse. Rick came to UW Madison in 1990 -- 1988 as an assistant professor in the department of bacteriology, and was promoted to full professor in 1996. His research and scholarship have established him as a world leader in molecular biology, studying the fundamental mechanisms of gene expression, more specifically the mechanism of transcription by RNA polymerase, and the synthesis of ribosomal RNA, both essential cellular processes. Professor Gourse's research has resulted in over 140 peer reviewed publications in high profile journals, and more than 30 years of continuous funding from NIH. In recognition of this productivity, and the impact of his research, NIH awarded him a very select 10 year merit awards. Merit awards provide long term stable support to investigators whose research competence and productivity are distinctly superior, and who are likely to continue to perform in an outstanding manner. In addition to research, he teaches a popular course in advanced molecular biology, serves on numerous national, university, and department committees as well as the editorial board of multiple journals. Additionally, Rick served as department chair from 2010 to 2015. Professor Gourse is an excellent ambassador for UW Madison both on campus and around the world, and is well deserving of this award. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Thanks, Chuck, and J Hook for nominating me. And thanks for your kind remarks. I just want to say a very few words. Much of the credit for whatever success I have had over the years belongs to my colleague and wife, Wilma Ross. This is really a joint operation that we run in the lab. As with most science these days, this is really a team effort that also includes the work of many students and postdocs who have contributed to our research program. And finally I want to thank my department for its devotion to the value of both basic research and instruction whose practical payoff is many years down the road. So thank you. [ Applause ] >> Let me now call upon Professor Thomas Reps, chair of the department of computer sciences awards committee, who will present Professor Guri Sohi, recipient of the Hilldale Award in the physical sciences. >> Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to introduce my colleague, Professor Gurindar Sohi, and to tell you about his tremendous accomplishments. Guri received his undergraduate degree in electrical and electronics engineering in 1981 at the Birla Institute of Technology in Pilani, India where he was the gold medalist as the top student across all disciplines. He received his PhD in electrical and computer Engineering in 1985 from Illinois, and joined the computer sciences department here that Fall. He's now the E David Cronon Professor of Computer Sciences and [inaudible] research professor. And is now in his second term as the computer sciences department chair. His research area is computer architecture, the design of computing devices, particularly micro architecture. This area of computer science is an experimental one. Research involves understanding empirical behavior, opposing novel techniques, carrying out experimental studies of proposed techniques, and the like. In addition to traditional metrics of impact, the ultimate measure of impact in this field is whether the research actually influences practical commercial computing devices. And you'll see that Guri's work has had impact not just on many academic and industrial researchers, but on numerous commercial products. An early significant contribution was a model for out of order execution with precise exceptions and speculative execution formulated in 1987. It served as the basis of many commercial processors that have been designed and built since then. His papers on the model have been cited in over 150 US patents on processor design, and is a testimony to the beauty and elegance of the model that it continues to be the basis of contemporary out of order processor designs nearly 30 years after it was proposed. His later work on non blocking caches was instrumental in convincing processor manufacturers to switch to non blocking caches in the mid '90s. Another revolutionary idea that he introduced was the concept of thread level speculation which challenged traditional notions of parallelism and parallel processing in multiple processor systems. The work has inspired commercial prototypes and products from a range of companies, including IBM's Blue Gene/Q. One of the most significant outcomes of Guri's research is the idea of memory dependence prediction, embodied in patent 5,781,752, or the 752 patent for the short, held by WARF. The ideas in this area have been the key to efficient policies for scheduling memory operations, and have led to a rethinking of decades old knowledge on how to process memory operations out of order. All of these efforts that I've mentioned bear the mark of Guri's research style. Approach an important technical problem from a different viewpoint, and then device a very different, novel, and practical solution. The impact of his publications is second to none. He's the only person to receive the trifecta of top awards in computer architecture. The ACM SIGARCH Maurice Wilkes Award for Young Researchers in 1999. The ACM IEEE Eckert-Mauchly Award for Lifetime Contributions in Computer Architecture in 2011. And the IEEE Computer Society Ramakrishna Rau Award for Contributions in the Field of Computer Micro Architecture and Compiler Code Generation in 2016. He's also been selected as an ACM fellow, and an IEEE fellow in 2004, and was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering in 2009. Guri has also had a significant and lasting impact on the University of Wisconsin through his inventions which have brought significant revenue to WARF. Many of you have no doubt heard of the $110 million settlement in the Intel lawsuit for infringement of the 752 patent. The Intel settlement resulted in WARF being able to make on an ongoing basis an increased contribution to the graduate school's research fund. And in the computer sciences department the funds generated from the Intel settlement have been used to set up six endowed professorships, and the match for an endowed chair, as well as to supplement graduate student fellowships and stipends. Many faculty members and students across the university have thus already benefitted from these funds for their research, and many others will benefit for generations to come. In this regard Guri is likely second in impact on campus only to Hector DeLuca, and more recently in a lawsuit against Apple for infringement of the same patent, WARF obtained a mammoth $506 million settlement. To sum up, through his visionary research, innovations, and high impact contributions, which have been incorporated in billions of computing devices worldwide, Guri has reached the pinnacle of his field and has brought great recognition to the University of Wisconsin. He is an exemplary computer scientist, and fully deserving of the honor of receiving the Hilldale Award. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Becky. I'm humbled and honored to stand before my colleagues at this great institution to accept this award. Too often we hear about how the university benefits from the excellent faculty that it has. Very rarely do we hear about how faculty benefit from the outstanding institution that UW Madison is. I have benefitted significantly from this institution. It gave me the opportunity to be creative, to focus on what I was genuinely interested in, and to flourish. For this I will forever be thankful. I'd like to thank a few people who helped in my journey at Wisconsin. I landed at Wisconsin in the Fall of 1985 a fairly insecure 25 year old, not knowing what to do. I found inspiration in some work that some of my colleagues had done. And I followed up for the proposal for the design of a processor. Since this went against the direction that almost everybody in academia and industry were going in at that time, I lacked confidence. A colleague, Jim Smith, was a pillar of support. He provided encouraging and important feedback, and helped me build confidence in what we were doing. Three decades later that work has influenced the design of billions of microprocessors that are used daily all over the world. Much of our work would not have been possible had we not had the computational power that was [inaudible] research. Many of you have benefitted from this Condor system. It allowed me to do experiments that allowed us to see far in to the future. Without it, we would not have envisioned the things that we did. Throughout the years, another colleague, Mary Vernon [assumed spelling], was also an encouraging supporters and strong champion. More than just about anybody else, she made me feel welcome at Wisconsin, and helped me get through the numerous down periods. Another part of this great institution that I have benefitted enormously from is WARF. Having learned about patents from one of my [inaudible] started to file patents with WARF even though we never expected anybody to license them. Or pay for a license. Many years later WARF would defend one of our patents against the world's biggest maker of microprocessors. Carl Gulbrandsen and Michael Falk put their reputations on the line in this fight, and we went through many ups and downs. Most other institutions would not have withstood the pressure that ensued. I will forever be grateful for their faith in me, and for their determination to protect their intellectual property. I would also like to thank one other individual not associated with [inaudible] Michelle [inaudible] a lawyer who worked tirelessly and selflessly and got us through an especially bleak period during this fight. Thank you, everyone. It's a privilege to be a part of this wonderful institution, and I'm very honored to receive this award. [ Applause ] >> Professor Sissel Schroeder, chair of the department of anthropology, will present Professor Mark Kenoyer, recipient of the Hilldale Award in the social sciences. >> Thank you, Chancellor Blank. It is truly my honor, and a great pleasure, to be here today representing the department of anthropology, and to introduce my colleague, dear friend, and mentor, Jonathon Mark Kenoyer for this year's Hilldale Award in the social sciences. Professor Kenoyer is the George F Dales Junior and Barbara A Dales professor of anthropology. He is widely recognized around the world as the leading authority on the archaeology of South Asia and the Indus Valley, particularly the Indus Valley civilization centered on the Bronze Age site of Harappa which flourished about 5,300 to 3,300 years ago in present day Pakistan and Northwestern India. Mark is an unusual figure in archaeology in that his research extends in to every part of the world because of the comparative framing of his work on urbanism and early writing, his consideration of gender issues, and his highly influential experimental methods to reconstruct ancient technologies. In fact, the global attention that his scholarship has received has facilitated the expansion of his research program beyond the Indus Valley in to Oman, China, Taiwan, Korea where he has been instrumental in bringing new research strategies to bear on the study of ancient technologies. Mark has been excavating at the site of Harappa since he first joined this university in 1985 after completing his dissertation at Berkley in the department of South and Southeast Asian studies just two years earlier. In his research at Harappa, Mark has made numerous significant and transformative contributions to knowledge of early urbanism, including identifying the origins of writing in the Indus, elucidating the organization of early taxation and its relationship to state origins through the study of weights in the Indus region. And discovering the earliest evidence for wheeled carts and other aspects of transportation in South Asia that help reveal the extent and significance of non local resource acquisition and trade with distant peoples. Mark sits at the cutting edge of scholarship on ancient trade and technology, particularly during the Bronze Age of South Asia in large part because he has a remarkable facility with multiple lines of evidence which distinguishes him from the majority of archaeologists who often specialize in a single kind of material. And I'd also add that he is a fluent speaker of Bengali, Hindi, and Urdu, and he communicates his research to the descendent communities in their native tongue. Through books and in numerable articles, Mark has been illuminating multiple dimensions of a wide range of specialized technologies associated with lapidary, ceramic, metallurgy, glass, and textile craft working. He utilizes specialized tools like the scanning electron microscope and electron microprobe, as well as a range of other scientific techniques, to understand the structure and composition of raw materials used in ancient crafts, which can help identify their origins. And these methods have enabled him to track the ways in which people modified and transformed materials, and it has made it possible for him to trace the movement of raw materials and finished products. He's also made innovative use of ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological analysis combined with experimental reconstructions of specific ancient technologies, most notably through research at his outdoor classroom on Picnic Point where he teaches a popular course each summer on ancient technology. The results of Mark's research have substantial theoretical consequences for understanding the relationship between craft production, trade, and state origins. And they've challenged many of the old models of technological diffusion, and are contributing significantly to the eradication of the deeply entrenched myth of South Asia as a cultural and technological backwater. Mark's research has led to many national and international honors, including fellowship in several learned societies, including election to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2011. Mark is also deeply committed to teaching and mentoring excellence, and routinely teaches courses related to the issues that are the foci of his research, which keeps those courses very fresh and new for students. Students consistently given high praise at the undergraduate and graduate level, and he's legendary in our department for his deep engagement with service and governance to our program, the South Asia program, the university, and the disciplines of archaeology and South Asian studies. Mark's service record is stellar. He's always been active in university and departmental governance. He's had experience with nearly every departmental committee, served as chair for eight non consecutive years, and is a tireless advocate for our department. He's been deeply committed to this great state university, and to the department of anthropology for the nearly 32 years he has been here. Committed to scholarly excellence, faculty governance, outstanding teaching, and creating a welcoming climate for students, staff, and new faculty. A little known fact about Mark, and I'm not sure if he wants me to share this or not, is that he worked his way through graduate school as a chef. He brings his legendary cooking skills, especially for Indian food, to our annual Fall picnic, and he long ago established high culinary standards for our end of semester events and other social events, ensuring that everyone felt welcome, was well fed and happy. It's my great honor to introduce Mark Kenoyer as this year's Hilldale recipient in the social sciences. [ Applause ] >> Thank you very much, Chancellor Blank, faculty and colleagues, students and friends. It's a great honor to be here. I've sat in that audience many times, and I know it's going to be a long day so I'm not going to talk long. I just want to thank everybody who supported me. I came here in 1985, and one of the first people to welcome me was Joe Elder who got the first Hilldale award. So I want to recognize him. [ Applause ] Thank my chair [inaudible]. She's been a great friend. Karen Strier, my colleague who's across the hall who has to hear me talk to people all day long. And I hear you talk to people too. Also the department of anthropology as a whole has been very supportive. Ever since I came here, when I got the job, I just got the license to work at Harappa and I told them, "I will work here, but I'm going to be in Harappa every winter for the next as long as I can get money." So for 15 years I went to the field every year. And they supported me. So I really want to thank them for their support for research which helped me build a body of research that has gotten me to where I am today. Not through my own work, but through my collaborative work with Pakistani and Indian scholars and students and colleagues from many universities. Richard Meadow, my colleague at Harvard. Rita Wright, my colleague at New York University. And many other colleagues at major universities around the US as well as in Europe and abroad. I also want to thank the Center for South Asia, and also the previous department of South Asian studies who I was the joint appointment to, and also the current Asian languages and cultures department who I'm affiliate faculty with. Their continuing support for Asian studies is important, and I just want to say that on behalf of the more than 1.5 billion people that I represent in South Asia, thank you for this award because it recognizes our contributions to the world. And I'm going to have to talk to WARF because we may find the origin for zero at Harappa, and then we would have a really good patent. Okay? Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >> Please join me in one last round of applause for all four of our award winners. [ Applause ] Thank you all for coming. You are welcome to stay, but you're also welcome to go. I hope everyone had a good Spring Break. Welcome back to the rush between now and commencement. I just have a small number of announcements because I know we've got a lot of other business we have to do. In addition to today's Hilldale Award winners, the 2018 Distinguished Teaching Award winners were announced last month, and I and Provost Mangelsdorf are going to present those awards on April 11th at 5 PM at the Fluno Center. That ceremony is sponsored by the office of the secretary of the faculty. It is free. It is open to the public. And I encourage all of you to attend if you can. To quickly read down the list of names. Phillip Brown from geo science. Thomas Brunold from chemistry. Jerome Camal from anthropology. Ellen Damschen from integrative biology, formerly known as zoology. Simon Gilroy of Botany. Daniel Klingenberg from chemical and biological engineering. Nancy Rose Marshall of art history. David McDonald from history. Majid Sarmadi of design studies. Miriam Seifter, professor of law. Erica Simmons of political science. And Michael Thornton in African American studies. So congratulations to those 12 individuals as well. I encourage you to take a minute to watch the short videos that university communications put together where these award winners talk about their teaching, and how they would describe their classroom in a word or two. You can really hear their passion for the students. You can find those short videos at news.wisc.edu, and search for distinguished teaching awards, 2018. Last month the "US News and World Report" put out their list of best graduate schools, and once again many UW Madison graduate programs ranked among the nation's best. The list is long. It covers a lot of departments here on campus. So I'm not going to read through it, but it shows the breadth of the outstanding work that is done by so many from our leadership team to the faculty and staff, to our creative and engaged students, all of whom make those classrooms what they are. I want to remind you that elections for a number of faculty elected committees begin today. The election period will end at the end of the day on April 16th, which is two weeks from today. The slates of candidates were presented to faculty senate at the meetings in February and March, and please notify all of the members of your district of the fact that elections are open. To access voting software, go to committeetracker.wisc.edu. You log in with your net ID, and the software will shuffle you immediately in to the right election for your division so you can see the slates again as well as the candidate statements. Thanks to the candidates, I should say, who are running for these important committees. I also want to put in a plug for the annual Research in the Rotunda event at the state capital on April 11th. That's an opportunity for our undergraduate students from around the UW system to showcase research projects they've been involved with. It is really fun to talk to the students, and we always have a great showing from UW Madison, and it's also an excellent opportunity to remind legislators of the importance of research and the opportunities that our undergraduates have to participate in the creation of knowledge. Next, as many of you have probably heard, Lori Berquam, our long time dean of students and current interim vice chancellor for student affairs, is stepping down from that job. For this coming year she's been awarded a prestigious fellowship with the American Counsel on Education known as ACE, and as part of that program's leadership development component, Lori will be assigned to a senior role at a different campus for next year. She has let us know that she'll be leaving UW Madison in August, but I hope she will return a year later after spending her year on the ACE fellowship to look for new opportunities here at UW. In the months ahead I and others are going to have a lot more to say about Lori's contributions to this campus, and her tireless advocacy on behalf of students. And there will be public opportunities to thank her, to say goodbye, and to wish her well. Finally I want to note we're in the midst of a number of leadership searches. The vice chancellor of student affairs candidates will be announced on Thursday, and they will be on campus the last two weeks of April. I encourage all of you to come to one of their presentations. An announcement for the CIO finalists is coming soon. They'll be on campus later in April. And the final two director of library candidates are finishing their visits this week. So please participate in that process, and send us feedback as you are able. With that, I want to turn things over to Michael Layman. All of you have in your packet an extensive report on cyber security risk management, and Mike as our interim CIO has been working with a group of governance groups, and his advisor group, on putting this together. And he'll make a few comments, and then we will both open up for questions. Mike. >> Thank you, Chancellor. Good afternoon. I have 10 minutes to introduce you to this risk management framework policy that the chancellor referred to. This policy has been over a year in the making. A lot of people across campus from all walks of life and all departments and all types of staff and faculty have been involved. So that's why it's taking a long time. It's just not the easiest thing in the world to do. So the why is pretty easy. Assuming I can move that forward. If we had all of our information systems and computers in a couple rooms, it might be a lot easier to do this because then we'd have a better understanding of what data is in there, how these computers and systems are accessed physically and operationally and all that stuff, but they aren't, and we recognize that. Our information systems are everywhere. So the notion of the policy is that we have a shared responsibility for those information systems, and it's obviously something that we need to take very seriously. And if you follow the recent board of regents meetings, know that they're very interested in information security, spending a lot of time and making a lot of noise about that. Campuses are investing heavily in that, but this is sort of the why we're doing it, and the how. The what and how we do this is what took a year to pull together. So I'm not going to try to make you experts on implementing this policy. That is not the purpose of this. The policy has just been approved, and will roll out over a number of years, frankly, over time. But what I'm going to talk about just really simply is how does this affect you. So the number one thing that you need to understand is who is the risk executive in your area. And there is an appendix B in the implementation policy, page 17, that lists all the different units across campus that will have a risk executive. If you can't find one in there, reach out to somebody and we'll help you figure out who that is, but that's really the first thing is that these risk executives will be appointed on behalf of all these units. Those risk executives will then reach out to you and ask you to register whatever information systems you have. Register that system, and there will be a first discussion about what kind of data is in that system, and that's really the first time in which you'll be asked to do anything. So you can wait for that, be aware of that, but when a risk executive taps you on the shoulder and says, "We need some information about your system," that's what's going on there. There is something in the policy [inaudible] that says basically any research system that's in existence for less than a year and doesn't have [inaudible] restricted or sensitive data is likely to be approved and authorized immediately, but that's just one of those things that we'll work through as soon as we identify what are all the systems. You have to start with what's the universe of opportunity, and that's what the purpose of this risk registry will be. So after that, again, if the particular system you have does have restricted or sensitive data, then there will be, you know, people from the risk executive and the information security team to help you figure out what does that mean, fill out some questionnaires, and evaluate the security profile of that system. If there's suggestions for improvement, the team will make that. Then at some point there will be an authorization to go forward with that system. So that's the high level version of the policy. Again, only if it has restrictive or sensitive data. So at this point all you really need to know about is that this policy exists, it has been subject to a tremendous amount of scrutiny and work, and involvement of faculty. It was ultimately approved by the ITC, and I've been to [inaudible] a couple of times talking about it. So it's gotten a lot of eyes, and we think this is the best that we can do to write down how and what we're going to go do going forward. So be aware of it, and as I said, in many, many cases the research systems are going to be just passed through quickly, but participate when you're tapped on the shoulder. So that's all I wanted to cover unless you really want to go in to Q and A, which I don't. >> Yes. Questions for either Michael or myself. In the absence of questions, we move on. Thank you very much, Mike. I appreciate all your work and the work of everyone else on this feat. Risk management issue around our systems is one of the most important topics for the university. We have so much sensitive information from certain types of research results to student data to patient data for those who are in the medical school, and we've got to take this one seriously. So let us turn to minutes of the 5th of March, 2018. That is on pages 31 and 32 of your booklet. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? If not, I am going to state that they are approved as distributed. Let me now recognize Professor Anja Wanner who will move adoption of changes to the campus diversity and climate committee, and this is a second reading, and therefore we will be voting at the end. Anja. >> Good afternoon. So this is material you have already seen. We did not receive any suggestions to change what we showed you. So I move adoption of faculty document 2728 which will modify the charge of the campus diversity and climate committee, the CDCC, to make it in to 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. As noted, at last month's first reading and in your materials, these changes are mainly to address the fact that the CDCC's current charge dates to a time before the creation of the division of diversity, equity, and educational achievement now led by vice provost and chief diversity officer Patrick Sims. >> Questions or comments? If there are not, I will assume you are all ready to vote. All in favor of adopting the proposed changes, indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. Let me recognize Professor Anja Wanner again who will move approval of the creation of the committee on disability access and inclusion. Again, a second reading and we will vote at the end. >> I move adoption of faculty document 2729 which will create a new committee on disability access and inclusion, the CDAI. You discussed this at a first reading last month, and again we did not receive comments or questions. However, the academic staff executive committee pointed out to us that the distribution of academic staff across the subcommittee structure did not appropriately represent the range of academic staff positions. Therefore we've changed the membership of this committee as follows. See this one, right? The number of academic staff on the committee will increase from two to three, with one and only one academic staff member on each of the subcommittees. The subcommittees are one on instructional access, one on employment access, and one on physical and digital access. This creates a logical parallel for all four governance groups. Faculty and academic staff are involved with all three subcommittees, and thus have three members on the overall committee. University staff and students are involved with two of the three subcommittees, and thus have two members on the overall committee. >> Are there questions or comments on this proposal? >> Chad Alan Goldberg, district 71. I have a concern about subcommittee on instructional access, and the concern is under item C 2C which are the functions of that subcommittee. One of the functions of the subcommittee is to serve as the first level appellate body for the denial of an academic or instructional commendation where there's no existing internal appeal or grievance process. My concern about this is that as far as I understand this means that the appeal would be decided by a subcommittee in which administrators heavily outnumber faculty. 8 administrators and only 1 faculty member would be deciding that appeal. That makes me uncomfortable. It seems to me that if a faculty member has denied an academic or instructional accommodation, the appeal should be reviewed by faculty or at least a subcommittee in which faculty are the majority. >> I think the person to address this best would be Cathy Trueba, our ADA coordinator. Is coordinator the right name? >> Thank you. It's an important question. That policy piece comes from the prior group, the committee that was specifically on access and accommodation in instruction that had more faculty members represented on the committee. I will tell you that in my time here the committee's appeal process has been used once. Interestingly enough, it was an appeal to an accommodation denial for the McBurney Center. So it hasn't really happened within the academic environment, the classroom environment. I think we would be open to looking at some mechanism that would allow the voice of faculty to be seen. I'm not sure what the mechanisms would be for that other than to perhaps pull the three faculty members that are part of the primary committee together to be part of the appeal. Can we make those kinds of changes at this point? I think we'd be open to that. >> Seems to me that faculty should not just be able to see or have input, but should actually be the deciding body here in a case like this. And I understand that this is something that would be rarely used, but I am concerned about the precedent it sets. I would like to move that this sentence, this last function here, C 2C, be stricken. >> That it wouldn't function as an appellate? >> That's right. >> Is there -- This is a motion for an amendment. Is this -- Does anyone want to make any comments? Otherwise I'm going to ask for a second here. Is there a second to this? >> I'll second it. >> All right. Motion in the second. Discussion on the amendment to strike C 2C which makes this committee service a first level appellate body for denial of an academic or instructional accommodation where there's no existing internal appeal or grievance process, which of course leaves a hole and says that at some point we'll have to come back and figure out who will deal with those types of appeals. >> So if I may speak to that. Chad Alan Goldberg, district 71. So I think I've made my reasons for this motion clear. I understand that this leaves a hole as the chancellor pointed out, and that this will need to be revisited. I don't think that this is probably the appropriate time or venue for that so I think another proposal would have to come back before the faculty senate in which an appeals process that would be more appropriate could be worked out, and proposed for the senate to vote on. >> Is there further discussion on the amendment? >> Yes. I just want to speak in favor of the amendment. This is something that could certainly be clarified at a later -- Oh, sorry. That's [inaudible] district 63, mathematics. It could certainly be clarified at a later meeting, especially if it comes up only rarely. >> Are there other comments on the amendment? If not, if you are ready to vote on the amendment, a vote of yes would strike this line, C 2C here, and we would have to come back and correct that at a later stage. All those in favor of this, indicate by voting yes. >> Yes. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> I think the ayes have that one. All right. We're now back to the full motion. Is there any other comments or questions on the motion, the full proposal? If you're ready to vote on the amended proposal, all of those in favor of the proposal as amended, indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? All right. It passes, and we will charge the UC with looking at the gap that is left here for other forms of appeals. Having passed both of those two motions, we now have some housekeeping items that we have to clean up because with these motions some things have changed. And if you turn to page 44, this is out of order, page 44, there's a single paragraph. And Professor Anja Wanner is going to move approval of those housekeeping related items in that single paragraph that relate to these two votes that we just took. >> So, as a result of the votes you just took modifying the CDCC to include additional language, and creating the new overarching CDAI, I move adoption of faculty document 2740 which will remove the advisory committee for the office of equity and diversity, and the disabilities accommodation advisory committee from FP&P, and also disband the committee on access and accommodation and instruction. All of the functions and the charges for these three committees, perhaps with that minor hole we're now leaving that we will close, are now included in the other two committees you acted on a few minutes ago. >> Is everyone clear what we're doing? We're making sure FP&P now recognizes the two new committees you've created. Is there any conversation or discussion of that motion? All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. Let me now go back to page 39, and recognize Professor Anja Wanner who will move approval of changes to the introductory sections of FPP chapter 6. This is something that came before you last month. So this is also a second reading, and we will vote at the end. >> This time I move adoption of faculty document 2733 which contains a number of changes to FPP chapter 6. We have rearranged the markup language on this document to hopefully make it clearer what changes are being made. And what the reason behind each change is. In addition, at last month's first reading of the document, a couple of issues were raised that I hope have been addressed in this version. Specifically the role of the university committee and other bodies as authorized appointing bodies has been changed. We're using the language of an authorizing -- of an appointing authority. And the language in 604 has been changed to focus on the fact that shared governance must be acknowledged in the creation of committees, including ad hoc committees. >> Is there discussion and commentary on this motion? >> [Inaudible] Goldberg, district 71. I move that the motion be divided, and we vote on each part separately. >> By each part, what do you mean? There are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 -- >> In our packet, yes. So each row would be a part. >> Each row. >> The rows are divided by lines. >> So you want to vote separately on 6.01, 6.02, 6.03, etcetera. >> Right. >> All right. That is a motion. Do I hear a second? I have a second. Is there commentary on this? Do you want to explain reasoning? >> Sure. So my reason for making this motion. A lot of these changes, I think, will be non controversial, and so can be voted on quickly. However, there are a few that I do have some concerns about and wanted to suggest amendments, and I think dividing the question makes it a little easier to do that. >> I am told that this motion is not debatable. We either vote it up or down. So all of those in favor of voting separately on the 10 different -- I think it's 11. I count them right here. Different sections. Indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> All those opposed. >> No. >> I think the noes carry it, which means we will vote on the resolution in its totality. Are there other comments or questions on the resolution? >> Chad Alan Goldberg, district 71. So I have a couple of amendments I would like to suggest. I don't know whether -- Since we're voting on this as a package, I should tell them. I should state them all now or -- >> Each one at a time, I would think. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. One at a time. So I'm a little bit concerned about 6.01F, and 6.01G, the inclusion of the language about university committee or other authorized appointing body. And I want to make clear why. It's not any animosity toward the university committee. I have the highest respect for our colleagues who serve on the university committee, and I respect the work that they do which is a heavy burden. However, I am a little bit concerned about how these changes might end up centralizing authority for decision making, and I'm a believer in participatory democracy. And so what I would like to do -- I move to amend the proposed language in 6.01F by striking the added language in italics that are underlined, and replacing that language with the following. Or other appointed body, to which the faculty or faculty senate have delegated authority. >> Is there a second to that amendment? Do you want to say something to this? I think there's a response here that they want to give. >> No. I think I've already explained my rationale for this. >> I'm not entirely sure how that is different because the university committee, as the executive committee of the senate, has that authority. So. >> So it would make explicit the relationship between the faculty senate and the university committee. >> That is made explicit elsewhere in FP&P, I think. >> Could you point me to where? >> Where the university committee is described in FP&P? I would have to look up where exactly that is that it functions as the executive committee of the faculty senate. So. >> I think it's a -- with no offense, a distinction without a difference. So I don't -- I mean I don't think it changes anything. It just doesn't explicitly mention the university committee. So. >> If it's a distinction without a difference, then the amendment should be non controversial. We should all grant it. >> Are there other comments on this? If so, all of those in favor of this amendment in section 601F, indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> All of those opposed. >> No. >> I am going to have to call for a count on that one. It's not obvious to me. All of -- Can all of those in favor please raise your hand and keep them up, and I'm going to ask the counters to come up the aisles and count. Okay. Do we have a count? All of those voting no, raise your hand. Keep your hands up until the count is complete. It passes, I am told. So that amendment has passed. Are there other amendments? >> There's only a few. Chad Alan Goldberg, district 71. So for 6.01G I move precisely the same amendment. So where the proposed new language is to insert university committee, the motion is to substitute the exact same phrase, "Or other appointing body to which the faculty or faculty senate have delegated authority." It's essentially the same motion. >> Is there a second to that? Motion has been made and seconded to include the same language in 601G that we just accepted for 601F. Is there commentary? >> I'm sorry. Correction. Faculty senate should go before the language that I'm proposing. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Comments. Does anyone here want to say anything or are we ready to vote? All those in favor of this change, indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> Any opposed? That time the ayes clearly have it. Are there other amendments or discussion comments? I will call on you for -- >> Chad Alan Goldberg, district 71. I move to strike 6.03 advisory committees. This proposed language that would be added here. I can explain why if there's a second. >> Is there a second to the motion to strike 6.03 advisory committees? I see a second. If you want to address. >> So my reason for this is I find this an odd addition to FP&P. If an advisory committee is not a faculty or shared governance committee, it seems to me that it doesn't belong in FP&P. We don't need to have language about it. And if it is a shared governance body, then it falls under the existing language that's already there. It's also a bit unclear to me -- Well, I'll just -- I'll stop there. That's my main reason. >> Does someone want to speak to why the language has been included under 6.03? >> I'll just reiterate what it says here, but when a committee is created that's not a chapter six committee then sometimes people ask, "Oh, what's the composition of this committee? Which rules do we have to follow?" So sometimes saying you do not have to follow the rules for those other committees can help bring clarity to some situations. >> I guess I am very concerned about having language in FP&P in which the purpose and intent of the committee is dictated potentially to the faculty. This language sits very uneasily with me. I understand that the advisory committee has -- is established by another appointed body, and is a creature of that body. But for that reason I don't think we need this language in FP&P, and I don't think we need language that enshrines this kind of precedent in which we ask to be dictated to by another body. >> Eric Sandgren, district 113. I'm wondering if someone could provide an example of the sorts of committees that would fall under here. When I first read this, I liked the idea of building in a certain amount of flexibility to establish advisory committees. And I personally think we need to do that more often, but what type of a committee might fall under this such that this wording would be required in place in FP&P? >> An example would be the advisory committee to the provost [inaudible]. Would you like to speak to that, how that committee is composed? That's the committee that's advising the provost on policies, for example, about consensual relationships. >> Usually these are one time committees that are put together around specific issues. So the provost is writing language as a result of what happened with the Board of Regents around our sexual harassment/sexual violence issues, and [inaudible] was created to give advice to the provost as we put those priorities together. You want to say more? Yeah. >> And ultimately the policies that that committee has been working on come to you for your vote, and so if you didn't like any of it, you approved the sexual harassment policy in the Fall, and the consensual relationships policy has not yet come before the senate, but it will. So it's -- We ask advice on specific topics, and bring people together, and they help on working -- But these are not necessarily standing committees. >> They tend to exist for a short period of time for a specific purpose, and then are disbanded. >> Eric Sandgren, district 113. So I guess then my question becomes why do we need this here. What is the advantage of putting it here? I like the idea that this can happen, and I'd like to hear someone speak in favor of it. And I would actually ask Chad also to address again more specifically why he thinks this is a problem. In other words, if we're already creating committees like this, how does this add anything to FP&P? Does it just clarify what we've been doing all along? And then so why is it here? >> It does clarify what we've been doing all along, but as Anja said, we also get lots of questions if a committee is created. The other example out there is the labor codes licensing committee which is not currently a chapter six committee by any stretch of anything. But we get lots of questions about it, and the answer is it's an advisory committee. We don't have a definition of advisory committee anywhere else. >> Noah Feinstein, community and environmental sociology. It does seem that there is a need to have some language about advisory committees somewhere. I appreciate the need for that, given that we appoint them all the time. This language also makes me uneasy, and there are two reasons, one of which is procedural. There are various procedures that we typically follow with chapter six committees which are separated from other sorts of committees that we have around the university, and they're typically very well specified in the definition of those committees. This language makes it possible to form a committee with basically any composition, and appointed in any way with any sort of charge, as long as it's limited to advisory, which is a very broad notion. So, for instance, many of our appointed and elected committees have advisory functions. So here's a way that this could be a problem. A body of the university could appoint an advisory committee with no expiration date even though these committees are supposed to be typically ephemeral and to go away. There's nothing that requires them to be ephemeral and to go away in this language. That advisory committee could be essentially parallel to an existing committee because there's nothing that prevents it from that in this language. And then the administrative authority to whom that committee was advisory could choose to weigh that advice against the advice of an existing chapter six committee which already had some purview over that matter. You could see situations where this sort of -- Now this does not reflect any active mistrust of existing administrative authorities to say that I could foresee a situation in the future in which a parallel committee of this sort could be weighed against and used as a counterpoint to an existing elective or appointed chapter six committee. So that's the sort of circumstance in which an appointed committee of this sort with no expiration date could cause problems. >> Did you want to respond to that, Anja? >> I see that concern. We already have those committees, and I think we were guided by trying to put in to FP&P what happens already. So to have FP&P in line with practice. If that's not a good approach, if we should limit ourselves to chapter six committees, then we will just not have that language here. I think we can all live with that, but we have these committees already. >> Chad, if you want to speak next. >> Maybe I'll just add that part of the background for my concern about this -- I think it was Steve who mentioned labor licensing committee. I know that in the past, for instance, when students were mobilizing for a boycott of Palermo's Pizza because of their unfair labor practices, the composition of this committee became a matter of controversy. And those who thought that the committee should be operating under shared governance principles were informed that in fact those principles didn't apply because it was an advisory committee, and as an advisory committee was a creature of the chancellor's office. And so I understand that there are committees like that. I understand that they operate, and I understand that they've been operating without this proposed language. So this proposed language doesn't seem to me necessary, number one. And number two, what really just sits uneasily with me is to enshrine within FP&P committees that are -- that we -- in which we have no say in the appointments to those committees. In which the appointing body dictates and controls the composition of the committee, to use the language that's proposed here. I understand that will happen anyway, but I'd prefer if that did not happen with the blessing and imprimatur of FP&P and the faculty. >> Betsy Stovall, district 63, mathematics. When I read the original wording, one thing that's not clear to me is whether and which committees would after the fact -- So committees that already exist might be classified as advisory committees, and whether this would have any impact on the function of those committees. >> The answer seems to be no. >> Thomas [inaudible] 24, I believe. I'm uncomfortable with this for the same reason others have spoken to. Why does it belong in FP&P? And for reasons others suggested. My experience with advisory committees in professional schools like the business school have not been without conflict, and one of the reasons that people appointed to advisory committees are often appointed with inherent conflicts of interest, with at least -- Donors are appointed. Certainly people who have commitments to the university. And sometimes these things become a little bit of a quid pro quo where there's a reluctance to challenge people who might give you money. There's just a lot of reasons that faculty should arrange -- That FP&P should remain FP&P, and these kind of vague outside personages having FP&P authority bothers me. >> Are there other comments on the proposed amendment? If not, if you are ready to vote on whether to strike section 6.03 on advisory committees, all those in favor of striking that section, indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> The motion carries. Are there any other motions relating? >> Chad Alan Goldberg, district 71. I promise I only have two more. So 6.04 of the committees established by the faculty, the proposal is to insert university committee and A and B. My motion would be to again use the language that I suggested earlier which was to substitute or other appointing body to which the faculty or faculty senate have delegated authority. >> Is there a second to that motion? So the proposal is to replace university committee with the same language we used in 6.01 and 6.02, as before. Is there further discussion of that? >> This motion would also cover B. >> Yes. It's [inaudible] both of those. Sure it's clear up here? In the absence of further conversation about this amendment, if you are ready to vote, all those in favor of this change indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> Are there any opposed? All right. Change carries. >> Chat Alan Goldberg, district 71. My last amendment. I propose for 6.03C, the addition at the very end of the single sentence. The university committee's decision may be appealed to the faculty senate. >> So the proposal at the end of 6.04C is to add a sentence saying this is about disputes about whether or not a committee should be deemed shared governance in scope. That the university committee's decision can be appealed to the faculty senate. >> That's correct. >> Is there a second to that amendment? Is there discussion of that amendment? If not, if you are ready to vote on that proposed amendment, all those in favor of adding that last sentence, indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> Are there any opposed? >> No. >> All right. The amendment carries. >> Thank you for your patience. >> Yes. >> Betsy Stovall, district 63, mathematics. I have concerns about two of the items under 6.09. So in the -- So it seems to me that we've substituted 6.09 that puts some controls over committees for 6.09 that puts fewer controls over committees. So the -- I first would like to make a motion to amend 6.09 to include the original 6.09C. >> There's a motion to remove the change in -- We're talking about 6.09C, and to go back to the original language. Is there a second to that motion? Would you like to? >> Yes. So if I could speak in favor. So the purpose of the recommendation from a committee is not to tell us what we have to do. It's to tell us -- Well, to make a recommendation. And it's how are we supposed to evaluate the quality of that recommendation without knowing more about the vote from that committee, and whether the vote in particular among the faculty was unanimous? So the concern is raised that it runs counter to voter confidentiality. This seems like it could be an easier fix than what's presented here. Most of the votes for recommendations would be held in open session of these committees. >> Does anyone who works on this resolution, would they like to speak to this proposal? >> This is not so much about confidentiality as it is about workload on how committees make their decisions. Most -- Almost all of our committees make their decisions by consensus. And I guess in that case it would be easy. But sometimes there's a few people who don't agree, but don't want their votes recorded. So it just puts an extra burden on the chairs, and the office of the secretary of the faculty, to record additional votes. And so it's a minor amount of additional work. >> Chat Alan Goldberg, district 71. I think I would like to speak in favor of this amendment. I'll simply say that there is an established literature in democratic theory that supports public voting in certain circumstances for certain purposes. I don't think we should decide as a matter of course that any public voting is a bad thing. We often do public voting ourselves, as my colleague said. And I'll spare you the lecture on John Stuart Mill, but just from a point of view of democratic theory, there might be very good reasons for having public voting in situations like this. >> Is there any other discussion? Note that the amendment adds 609C back in, and we'd have to renumber because it does not delete the next -- The 609C that was added. Because that's about something different, right? So we're going to have to renumber things here. That will now become 609C, 609D. 609D will become 609E. But all we're doing is putting that paragraph back in. We're not taking anything out. Yeah. >> Kurt Feigl, district 58. I have a question for clarification. Is it only the votes of the faculty members that would be reported? What about the votes of the other members of the committee? >> There are provisions elsewhere in FP&P that have certain committees take action on academic matters. They have to report out the faculty vote. And so we report out the total, and the faculty vote. We don't break down the rest of the vote, and I would argue strenuously against breaking down the rest of the vote because often we have one academic staff member or one student on a committee. >> Are there other questions or comments on the proposed amendment? All of those in favor of restoring the original language here to 609C, indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> Are there any opposed? The ayes have it. Are there any other amendments? >> Betsy Stovall, district 63, mathematics. I would also like to make a motion to fix our numbering problem, and strike 6.09C. >> We've got a number of numbering problems. >> Yeah. It's the second. >> All of those have get fixed. Yeah. Yeah. We can take care of that by consent, I think. >> No. No. I mean, but my -- Sorry. But to strike the new 6.09C. >> You want to strike the, "A committee may seek changes to its charge by presenting a proposal to the university committee?" >> Yes. >> Is there a second for that? I hear a second. Do you want to explain that? >> Yes. So this one, I guess on principle maybe I'm not opposed to this, but there's very little said about the procedure by which a committee would be able to change its charge or the procedures that the university would consider in doing this. And in committees that are in, for instance -- It's not telling us which committees are able to seek changes in their charge. Presumably all committees. And for the committees that are in, say, faculty policies and procedures, that would seem problematic. >> Yeah. This is something that we just voted on today that the CDCC, for example, realized that there were some duplications, and they changed its function. It brought the proposal to the university committee. And then of course we bring it to the senate for approval. >> Yes, indeed. And I think that's a good process to go through, but this does not specify that that needs to take place or when that needs to take place. It could certainly. If this is important, it could certainly be added again later with more specific language, but I -- >> So I think this just says that you have to start at the university committee. Other parts of FP&P make it quite clear that a committee charge which is written in to FP&P cannot be changed without a vote of the faculty senate. I don't think that needs to be said here. It's quite clear elsewhere. We have an amendment, and a second, on removing this last section. All of those in favor of doing so, indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> All those opposed. >> No. >> All right. That does not carry. Is there anything else? I'm going to make a minor procedural point which is that we do have first readings, and it's helpful when there are this number of proposed changes to have brought those changes to the university committee. They may or may not accept them, in which case you would have to move to this type of a discussion, but it does lead to a very extended discussion here if the UC hasn't had a chance to talk about some of these and potentially accept them before it comes back for a second meeting of the senate. All right. We are to an amended proposal here we have a number of amendments in it. It will have to be renumbered. We can handle that. All of those who are in favor of the amended proposal, indicate by saying, "Aye." >> Aye. >> Are there any opposed? All right. The motion passes. We have one last item of business. This is a first reading. So there will be no vote. Let me recognize Professor Anja Wanner to present recommendations from the ad hoc committee on seventh year reviews for a first reading. I am told seventh year reviews do not exist. >> If you say seventh year reviews, you have to say so-called. So this is the last one for today. You have in your materials faculty document 2741 which comprises the final report of the ad hoc committee on so-called seventh year reviews, and recommended changes to FP&P based on that report. This ad hoc committee was charged by the UC in order to resolve whether there is such a thing as a seventh year review. A question about which there was some discussion both within and across some of the divisional committees in recent years. As you can see, the clear conclusion, one with which the university committee and the office of the secretary of the faculty agree, is that there is no such thing as a seventh year review. Or put another way, all reviews for promotion with tenure must commence before the mandatory review date which marks the end of the sixth clock year. The ad hoc committee also concluded that clearing up some of the ambiguity in FP&P would go a long way towards eliminating the confusion about so-called seventh year reviews. I look forward to your comments on this first reading either today or before we take the vote next month. >> Comments. >> Eric Sandgren, district 113. A question. What type of situation is this designed to address? >> Sometimes people bring forward a sixth year review very late in the year. So late, perhaps, that the divisional committee cannot vote on it. And then the process continues in to the seventh year, but that does not result in an extra buffer year. It's still a sixth year review, but some people think that if the divisional committee votes in the seventh year then that is somehow a change of the tenure clock overall. It is not, and we just try to clarify that. >> That makes a lot of sense to me, and I'm wondering if either maybe I just missed that or if it could be added to clarify or to make it very distinct that there is no addition to the buffer year. >> We can make sure they clarify language. It's a good comment. >> Betsy Stovall, district 63, mathematics. So I had one concern which was in the change to 7.15C. There's a 90 day limit to appeals by the department. Or I can't remember what the reconsideration request from the department. If a decision from the divisional committee comes in May, then it may be very difficult for a department executive committee to get a quorum within 90 days. >> That decision should not come in May. If departments do their work properly. At the moment we do not have such a period at all, which makes it very unforeseeable to see where the process would lead. So I would just say that if departments do their work the way they're supposed to do it, then this situation shouldn't really occur. >> And so Betsy Stovall, district 63, mathematics, and in fact the divisional committees often make many decisions in May, including decisions that have been postponed from previous months. And so -- >> Betsy, come up to the podium. >> The divisional committee has a schedule where they ask for everything internal, everything internal to come by February. And then the decision is made by March, and the rest of the year is designated for people coming from the outside. >> Then perhaps this depends on the division. In some divisions that's simply not the case. >> Okay. >> Perhaps I'm underestimating the burden of starting this request, but you only need to start the request reconsideration within 90 days. It needn't happen. Is that correct? >> So but here does the -- >> It's a request for the vote. It's not actually the vote itself. >> And so that request does not need to be made by the executive committee, just by, for instance, the department chair. Is that sufficient? >> So my other -- The other concern. I ran this by a couple of my colleagues who had been on divisional committees and were faculty affairs committee in the past, and they were really concerned about the last item in 7.14C which states that it's generally expected that, except under extraordinary circumstances, completely new information will not be considered as part of any divisional committee reconsideration. This seemed to them not to be a good idea, and they weren't sure about the rationale in reading the document. I'm also not sure about the rationale behind this. >> Perhaps we need to clarify. What this means is the following. It is your sixth year review. If it is drawn out in to the seventh year, and the person has produced let's say new research within those months, then that would not be considered because it is essentially that sixth year review. Obviously if something was missing that wasn't considered, that piece needs to be included, but new facts, new knowledge that is created, could not be used. >> Betsy Stovall, district 63, mathematics. Yes. I would appreciate that clarification. I think it's not clear in the -- >> Other comments. >> Noah Feinstein, community and environmental sociology. I appreciate the intent behind this which I see as clarifying an important and troublingly vague aspect of our tenure policies. I think that it's important to recognize that it may constitute in some respects a change or at least a change in how tenure is practiced, the policies for approval of tenure are practiced. And therefore this will be perceived as a very serious issue in departments around the university. I will certainly do my best, and would encourage my colleagues to do their best, in the space between now and our next meeting to circulate this document for broad consideration. There is a wide body of expertise of former divisional committee members in all of our departments, and I think this would benefit from their reflection so we can get a better sense of collective practice. Thank you. >> And if there are some divisional committees and divisions that are operating in quite different ways in which this seems problematic, please be in touch with the UC and get that feedback to them as soon as possible. Are there any other comments? If not, I will conclude the conversation about this. It will come back to you for a second reading and a vote. And note that the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.