>> I am told we have a quorum, so I'm going to call the meeting to order. And then ask all of the faculty to rise as you are able for the reading of the Memorial Resolutions. Let me start by asking Professor Emeritus Stewart Macauley to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emerita Margo Melli. >> In 1959, Margo Melli was the first woman law professor hired at Wisconsin and one of the first hired anywhere. She pioneered the study of family law, an area of great change over the time of her career. She conducted important research and did important law reform. She was a fine teacher. Margo was a mentor and a role model, particularly for women joining law faculties. She won many awards and now important awards are named after her. She was a patron of the arts who worked in so many ways to make her community better. She was a great friend, warm, witty and wise. >> Thank you very much. Let me recognize Professor Emeritus Frank Fronczak to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus John Moskwa. >> Good afternoon. John Moskwa musician, mechanic, engineer, advocate. John Moskwa excelled at two disparate professions, musician and engineer. As a professional musician his brilliant trumpet call thrilled the senses and brightened the spirit. His ability, determination and strength of character enabled him to scale even greater heights as an engineer in industry, government research labs, consulting work and at the University of Wisconsin Madison where he achieved international recognition for his ground-breaking research. Uncompromising in his principles, he was a champion of faculty governance. Strongly encouraging his colleagues to meet their responsibilities to the university and to the greater society that they served. The coda, the brilliant notes of John's last trumpet call have faded away. The brilliance of his engineering still rings out. His integrity, goodwill and generosity continue to reverberate as a memorial to his life, a life greatly well lived. Thank you. >> Thank you and Professor Moskwa's ex-wife Kathy and their son Joseph are with us today, thank you so much for coming. [ Applause ] Let me recognize Professor Emeritus Bruce Marion to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus John Fritz Mueller. >> Thank you, chancellor. Willard Fritz Mueller, a vilest research professor in agricultural and applied economics, economics and law, died on December 1, 2016. Professor Mueller was internationally recognized for his economic and legal contributions to issues of competition in industries and the role of government to influence industrial behavior. He was chief economist of the Federal Trade Commission during 1961 to 69, and served as executive director of the president's cabinet committee on price stability in 1968. He returned to UW Madison in 1969 and played a leading role in creating an 18 University Consortium to research competition and monopoly in the US food system. >> Thank you and Professor Mueller's son Scott is here today, thank you for being here. [ Applause ] And finally, I want to recognize Professor Matthew Berland to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Wayne Otto. >> Professor Wayne R. Otto of Middleton, Wisconsin was born on October 22nd, 1931 and died at age 86 on November 8th, 2017. He's survived by his wife of 31 years Diane Hammer, his daughter Eleni Otto, brother Roger, nephews Tim and Luke, and stepdaughter Susan [inaudible]. He joined the UW Madison Department of Curriculum and Instruction in 1965 and served admirably for 30 years. Professor Otto consistently provided guidance and leadership to his colleagues on campus and throughout the nation regarding the development of reading research. He contributed to scholarship and reading education through his publications, his service, and through his mentorship of graduate students. >> Thank you very much and thanks to everyone who attended and you may all be seated. Welcome back to campus everyone. It is, we're well into the semester, I was just thinking for those courses that give two midterms I think this is the week of the first midterm, so time is flying by. I hope you all had a good and a productive summer and I particularly want to welcome the new senators, as well as the old senators I guess, and thank you all for your service. I want to welcome the new university committee here Rick Amasino and two new UC members, Kirsten Wolf in the Department of German, Nordic and Slavic Studies, and Paul Campagnola in biomedical engineering and medical physics, as well as a returning cast from last year for the rest of the UC. There are a couple of new faces around the university, Lori Reesor is our new vice chancellor for student affairs. I don't think she is here this afternoon, but many of you I hope will get a chance to see her and to interact with her. That is a new role really overseeing all of our non-academic student life issues across campus. Lois Brooks is our new CIO and those of you interested in IT issues will no doubt need her and hear from her in the months ahead. And Lisa Carter is our new vice provost of libraries and head librarian, and those of you who are interested in libraries will have a chance to see her. We have two major searches underway right now that are of general interest. One is a search for a new vice chancellor for research and graduate education, this was the job that Marsha Mallick held. When she resigned for personal reasons about 6 to 8 months ago Norman Drinkwater has taken over that job on an interim basis. And we will be searching for a new person. That committee has been put together and is going to be headed by Dorothy Farrar-Edwards, it's a really great committee. And we have a search for a new dean of the Business School which is headed by Mark Covaleski, a professor in the Business School. The application deadline for applicants was actually last week, they started work back in June so that committee is also well launched and underway. Let me start with our new class of freshmen on campus. It is the largest and most diverse class that we've ever had. As you all know, we set a new record for applicants last spring, they were up 20% overall, 30% for non-residents, 5% for Wisconsin residents. The result of that is a really great new incoming class, we've got about 6,800 freshmen and over 1,100 new transfers, they come from 47 states, a week ago that was 48, they must be dropping. We seem to be missing Mississippi, West Virginia and Wyoming and from 44 different countries. We have enrolled over 3,600 Wisconsin residents as freshmen. There was I might note what I consider to be a very unfortunate article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last week which some of you may have seen that said oh the University of Wisconsin Madison is admitting all of these additional out-of-state students they must be doing terrible things to Wisconsin students. And it ignored the fact that we have more Wisconsin freshmen in this class than we had 10 years ago because of the declines in the number of high school graduates that is happening in this state. Ten years ago we were admitting, we had enrolled in our freshman class 4.6% of all Wisconsin freshmen. This year we have 5.1% of all Wisconsin high school graduates enrolled in the class. So we have actually made a strong and an increasing commitment to Wisconsin despite what you might have read in the newspaper. I might also note that we had a really substantial uptick in our applications from underrepresented students of color. And we have more new incoming freshman from a [inaudible] group than we've ever seen before 748. But as with all of these issues those are things we need to continue to work on. This summer on July 1st, we formally incorporated into campus two major units that used to be part of us until about 50 years ago, the Cooperative Extension Service and Wisconsin Public Radio and TV. That adds just under a thousand new employees to UW Madison, it's going to add some people to the governance groups. And I must say in addition to new employees it also adds about 35,000 volunteers who support numerous programs either in public radio, public TV and 4H, and other forms of cooperative extension. That's something a little new for us. We don't have that number of volunteers anywhere close in our existing programs. So you know there's sort of a lot of new things coming with that. The transition as some of you know who've been working on is extensive, you know with 50 years apart they have different HR systems, different practices, different cultures. We've got working groups of both UW Madison and historically extension faculty working together on all of these issues and we're making real progress. We've got a great joint steering team that is overseeing all of this. And my goal as I've said before is to make sure that this is a win-win for everyone. That we do our research and teaching, enrich the programs of cooperative extension, and Wisconsin Public Media. And they through their very extensive state work and outreach and connections enrich our ability to fulfill our mission of pursuing the Wisconsin idea. And one of the things I'm looking for and I'd invite anyone who has ideas about this is ways over these next two years to find ways to put these groups together. You know to get us to know each other a little bit better. And if you have some suggestions in your department, in your school or college about how you might want to interact more closely with public media or with extension let us know because we're sort of looking for those opportunities and are trying to think about what we need to be doing. I want to spend most of my time today talking about investments. We are very fortunate for the first time in a number of years to have had some investment funds this last year that we invested in the campus for this coming fall. That is in part because not only did we not get state cuts, we got a small increase in state dollars. But it's also because all of you in the departments, many of the groups you know in the administrative area have really been working to expand, to be intrapreneurial and to generate some additional revenue. And you know the list of things we've been working on, expanded summer semester, the fundraising campaign with our alumni, rightsizing our out-of-state and professional tuition, a small increase in class-size. All of that is beginning to show results. As you know this university has been underinvested in for much of the last decade in my opinion, but we don't have infinite dollars and we've got to really smart about how we use these new dollars. So I want to say a little bit about what we've been investing in for this year with some of our dollars and you know invite you into a conversation about this. First of all, expanding and improving student access. Expanding summer and online options is one way to improve access and create much more flexibility in how students flow through our programs. But financial aid is probably more important than that. And in these past two years we've done a number of things to really expand support for low and middle-income students. I think you all I hope heard about the badger promise that we put on the table two years ago which basically provides tuition funding to first-generation students who transfer in. As you might know, large numbers of first gen students start in two-year schools in Wisconsin and you know upon completion of that, particularly if they're strong students, we want to bring them to UW Madison and want to make sure that that is financially possible. We've got about 150 people this year in our Badger promise cohort and I hope that grows. Secondly, this last year I announced Bucky's Tuition Promise which is a promise of scholarships that will cover four years of tuition and fees to any student who's admitted to UW Madison whose family income is in the bottom half of the Wisconsin income distribution, that's below $56,000. Our first Bucky Tuition Promise cohort, a freshman, has arrived and about 17% of incoming Wisconsin freshmen have so far taken up this option which I'm really delighted with. One of our big issues this year and we just announced this last spring, is to get word out about this program because you know putting it out in the Wisconsin State Journal doesn't do a whole lot. So our admissions office and our financial aid office has a major effort to get out to counselors, to community groups, to students all around the state. And that's of course something you have to keep doing because new potential freshmen keep growing up and we have to make sure that we message about this. Finally, I would note that our always forward alumni giving campaign has really increased scholarships and I just got the latest number. In just the past three years we had a number of really great scholarship matches. We have raised enough money to fund more than 3,400 new scholarships for all groups of students across campus, that's undergraduates, graduate students, athletes, nonathletes, need-based, some of them merit-based. It's a really good number and before this campaign is over I hope we're going to put it up to close to 5,000. As noted just announcing these programs isn't enough, I also want to make sure that we're doing things that are really helpful. And one thing I want to let you know about that I'm quite excited about is Professor Nick Hillman, the School of Education, is embedding a research lab inside the office of student financial aid calling it SSTAR, student success through applied research, always a good acronym helps. And this is really the first in the nation of a researcher inside a school's financial aid office that we know of. And we want him to be evaluating these programs you know as we're expanding them and rolling them out see who are we hitting, who are we not hitting, how well are these working, is the money making a difference on the margin. As he puts it we're building the bike while we're riding it. But that's exactly what we need to be doing as a university. So, you know, in order -- you can bring students in but you know we also need a community which welcomes those students and makes them feel at home here. In a minute I'm going to say more about our new target of opportunity program aimed at hiring more diverse faculty. But we are in the midst of a number of issues about community building and diversity. And I hope you all picked up the two-page handout that Patrick Sims's office puts out at the start of every semester that says here's what we've done on diversity and inclusion in the last semester, here's what we're working on, here's what we're going to be doing over this next year. And if you want to trace that over the last, I think this is the third year, we've been putting this out every semester. You can look through and see what we've been working on, what we completed, and where we're going. So that's student access. Investment area number two, staff and faculty excellence. I'm really pleased with the hiring this past year, we hired 112 new faculty, that is the largest number we've hired in six years. It's an 18% increase over our ten-year average. As you all know, if we're not hiring new young faculty we're in trouble right because that is how places renew themselves and how older faculty get nudged as new faculty come in with new sets of skills and ideas, and I'm delighted with that. This next year I think is going to look even stronger. We put money out there for a lot of schools and colleges to do additional hiring, they're bringing some money to the table. And of course the cluster hire program, we ran two clusters this last year so that's going to be around 30 plus faculty that people will be looking to hire. So I think our hiring numbers are going to go up even higher this next year. And I should note among the new faculty that came in over this summer, over the last two years, we welcome 45 new faculty of color to campus. And those of you who are at the reception for faculty of color both celebrating new people who have come to campus as well as promoted folks, it was just a wonderful group. And that size has grown noticeably in the years that I've been here, so thanks to Patrick and his group and others who help sponsor that. At the same time we're hiring the other piece of good news is that our retention cases are down, they're not where we want them to be but they're down. Two years ago after that terrible [inaudible] debate we 144 retention cases, last year we had 92, this past year we had 64. That's plus or minus, we don't always get all of them. But that's the right way for them to be going and hopefully we'll keep that up this year as well. In terms of future investments in all of this, as I say we expect further hiring, we will do as you probably all seem to recall for another round of proposals for cluster hiring. We'll do one round of clusters this year. I hope to keep that going for five years. And then there's the compensation side where we all know that we are lagging. Hopefully everyone in this room and all of your colleagues know that not only did you get a 2% increase the 1st of July but you will be getting another 2% increase across the board for all faculty and staff from the state on the 1st of January. So that's a 4% salary increase long overdue, it doesn't begin to make up for five years of pretty much close to zero but it's a good start. And on top of that, despite the fact the state did a 4% commitment this year we are putting the same amount of money into a critical compensation fund that we did last year. That's $11.5 million, 3 1/2 million for faculty, 4 million for staff, and 4 million in bonuses that can be used for faculty or staff. I have directed deans and department chairs to say this is the year we make progress on moving the needle. Everyone's got a 4% increase, use that additional critical compensation money to really move forward your faculty who aren't where they need to be and your staff who aren't where they need to be. So that with merit and equity program on top of the 4% increase we can actually start seeing ourselves move up at least a little bit. So you know you will all hopefully see more about that as all the departments move forward. And then the target of opportunity program that the provost's office has put together is our effort to really step up our effort to diversify our faculty. We've had a small and in my opinion not very adequate target of opportunity program. We all know that diversity matters, I keep saying this with regard to our students, it's an absolutely essential requirement for 21st century education. But you can't recruit diverse students if you don't also have a diverse community to bring them to. And the target of opportunity top program the provost has announced, I'll give it to you in brief, but all the department chairs should have this information. If there is someone from an underrepresented group in your discipline who you think might be hirable and who would add and deeply benefit your department you can make a case for it. And if that case is approved we will fund 100% of that individual's salary for the first five years, six years if they're an assistant professor, and 50% for the years afterwards. It's essentially the same deal we're giving for clusters all right. And we've already seen a lot of interest, I think we just approved our very first target of opportunity hire this last week. So I hope all of you will take advantage of that and start thinking about how you can use it. Students, faculty and staff, and the third investment area is obviously the whole area of research and improving and expanding our research. When I arrived five years ago our research dollars were going down, they were going down in absolute numbers much less inflation-adjusted. That happened for three years and one of the main charges that I gave to Marsha Mallick when she came in as the vice chancellor for research is we've got to turn this around. Well we've now had two years of a turnaround, we've had an 11% increase in research funding over the last two years. We've gotten some big research grants and even since the 1st of September. So I'm hoping this coming year is also going to look strong. But that didn't happen by chance it happened as the result of a lot of efforts. And obviously the cluster program is one thing looking forward that we're using for this. The vice chancellor's office for research and graduate education has done a number of things to improve services, make it easier to get research dollars. That agenda is not done I know that, but we're moving in the right direction. And the UW 2020 program aimed at supporting early-stage projects that are high-risk but potential high-impact which is funded by WARF has been very important. We've put 66 UW 2020 project funds out there that's involved 400 faculty and staff, that's $25 million over the last four years. And if you look at what's happened to those projects that we funded in the first year or two we've already more than made the money back. But you know over the next several years I think these early-stage projects where we've given the money to start up so they can get to the point they can go out for federal funds or other funding are really going to be worthwhile. That's on the research front and of course you all know that research is closely tied to graduate students. We need to bring in the best graduate students, it helps you attract faculty, it helps you do good work, helps you be part of the whole training agenda that is important to virtually all of our faculty. Over the last five years you all know how bad graduate stipend support has been in this university. Over the last five years we have raised graduate stipends by 25%. This last year we looked at the numbers and I said look let's just bring them up to the median, that was multiple millions of dollars. You see they're even playing music and so. We raised stipends this past year by 13% and we are now at the median of our peer Big Ten schools in TA stipend support. We have not been there for 15 years and I'm really pleased with that. That is of course not a one-time fix, we now can't let that drift down over time as we've done in the past we need to keep it there. But I think getting our graduate students funded adequately is a really important piece of the investments that we've been making. So quick trip to investments. Let me say something about budgets because it so happens to be a budget year in the state of Wisconsin. Those of you who are new, budget years come around every two years. We have a two-year budget in this state and this next year will be a budget cycle. The Board of Regents has already submitted a proposed budget to the governor. The governor's office in late January, early February will be announcing a budget for all different departments. And then for the next 3 to 4 months the state legislation will be debating that budget with the hope that it will be finalized and voted through at the latest by the end of June in time for the new fiscal year to start on July 1st. Budget years are always years where we really need people out there advocating for us and speaking about the value of this university. And our university relations team has a whole host of things planned. Until the election is over you're not going to get anyone's attention but there's going to be media buys, both social media and traditional media. There's plans for all sorts of people to be around the state meeting with various groups. For our alumni to be in touch and of course for myself and I know many of you [inaudible] to be out there in the state legislature talking to some of the key decision-makers. The system request in August asked for $107 million in new state funding. The majority of that is in addition to the outcomes-based funding that was approved in the last budget. About 25 million of it is for what are called capacity building initiatives which are additional funds for high-demand areas where the state business community and our students are demanding more and more courses and presence. If we got that 25 million, around 9 to 10 million of that would come to us, and we've put in proposals for engineering, for nursing, for the business school, and for computer science. And we'll see what comes of that. The capital budget is as important as you know the direct dollars to education. You all know what some of our facilities look like. The system has put in a very ambitious capital budget, we'll see what happens when that hits the governor's office and the legislature. Again, we're not going to know much until after the election. On our campus that budget includes and this is the first and most important, renovation and expansion of that veterinary medicine building, which has been much-needed and is at the top of the list. Additions and renovations to Sellery Hall, basically doing to Sellery what we've already done to Witte, a building that hasn't been renovated since it was built in the 60's. Replacement of an auditorium now that we're working on the surf. Both of our student rec facilities were terribly deteriorated. And a replacement project on Bascom Hill around our utilities, which you may not see those but believe me that's much-needed. And if you live anywhere around Bascom Hill you'll know why. One of the most important things we are talking about is, this might be eye glazing to a few people, but is we're asking for the university system itself to get the ability to issue our own bonds for program revenue projects. We are the only system, we are at Madison the only flagship university in the country that does not have bonding authority. Every project that we build has to be voted through by the state legislature okay, that is unheard of in almost any other state. And what we're asking for is for us to get bonding authority and we're quite confident of our ability that you know Moody's would give us a bond rating, we'd be able to do this. And at least at a start that we'd be able to bond for what are called program revenue projects. Program revenue projects are funded projects, they're funded by fees, they're funded by user costs of one sort or another. A parking garage is a program revenue project. You issued bonds but you know the revenue is coming in to pay them off. A dormitory is a program revenue funded project, you know you're going to get the money to pay it off. There are some research facilities that could be program revenue funded. So at least with that piece we would like to be able to issue our own bonds that reduces our ask to the state, takes those bonds off the state debt levels right. And increases our ability to focus our state asks on the laboratory and classroom and office buildings that we seriously need. So that is going to be a really major effort this year and we're going to be asking a lot of people to help us on that. And as far as I'm concerned to be honest that's the most important thing in this budget, we've got to get from out under the state having complete control over everything we do on capital projects. So compensation for this next year, that request does not go in until December. We don't know exactly how that's going to play out. I know the regents will put a positive compensation request in for both of these next two coming years. And I think there's still a little bit of a debate about where they're going to land. So that's moving forward and you know again those of you involved with PROFS in particular will hear a lot more about this. and anyone who wants to help us on talking to the legislature and various other people over this next year let us know. Let me close quickly with three final issues. I want to say a word about Foxconn and the agreements that we signed with them. As you may know our faculty are very deeply engaged in a number of areas where Foxconn has deep research interests. And indeed you don't do any sort of research partnership with a business or an industry without having faculty who want to work on it. We've already signed three agreements with Foxconn that relate to research projects in engineering, in the School of Medicine and Public Health, and then in the Carbone Cancer Center which is of course part of SMPH. In late August, Foxconn chairman Terry Gou and I signed a declaration of collaboration stating our intent to work together on future research projects spanning areas of engineering, healthcare, computer and data science. We agreed to have some presence at the research park they're going to be building in Racine and they agreed to partner with us here in Madison on a variety of research projects that we have mutual interest in. Among other things, Foxconn announced that they were making a gift of $100 million to UW Madison. Most of those funds, don't get too excited because most of that is going to go to the Engineering School, about $75 million will go to paying for half of the cost of a new building on the engineering quad. It's a building that engineering has long wanted to build, it's in their master plan. I think it's going to be a big advantage to campus. It will be an interdisciplinary building in terms of engineering, it's not just mechanical or civil it's going to span all of that. There will be student presence there and presumably a variety of labs and equipment, and other things. The Engineering School is on tabs to raise the other half of the dollars for that, that's going to be a heavy lift but Ian Robertson believes that that is doable and this building is certainly much-needed. The remaining 25 million is to be negotiated in these areas of healthcare, engineering and computer data sciences. And we will negotiate that out for either student support, for faculty support, potentially for some research support. This I think is a real opportunity and I myself hope that there's some other businesses in the state of Wisconsin that might get the idea that they should be supporting the university with these sorts of gifts as well. So that's Foxconn. Number two, a report back on, a report you all saw last May from a group of faculty on this campus that I had asked to look into our history relating to the groups on this campus that operated under the name Ku Klux Klan. That report arrived last spring, if you haven't read it Google KKK report on the UW website, it's a really beautifully written report, it's about 12 pages long. They had a number of recommendations there. We have done a number of those things, we're moving forward on them. But one of them was that we engage in a public history project here on campus collecting oral and archival history from more marginalized groups whose voices may not be very well represented in our official histories. And as a result of that recommendation I've allocated dollars to a 2 1/2 to 3 public history project designed to collect such archival and oral history. Professor Brenda Gayle Plummer from the history department has agreed to chair a search committee to look for a director for this public history project. I'm hoping it's going to involve undergraduates, graduate students a real opportunity to do some recent seminars and get undergraduates in particular involved in doing some of this work. The deliverables from this include a report on what they found, taggable online databases, curricular materials that might be usable in a variety of different classes, as well as forms of public display of this information to talk about what this is. So I'm really looking forward to seeing that project launch. And finally quickly the third thing, I want to let you know that tomorrow we will be releasing another report that got commissioned probably early in the winter last year. I had asked a couple of our most prominent computer science alums to work with a group of faculty and others to survey our computer science department and talk about how we can raise our game. And our computer science [inaudible] is listed as number 13 in the country, it's not a slouch department it's a very, very good one. But the importance of this department to the university, to our reputation, to an increasing number of fields is you know really clear. And we, you know, I was looking to say what do we need to do and that report is going to come out with some recommendations. And those of you interested not just in that department and in closely related departments in LNS there will be some recommendations around that. There's also going to be some discussion of what we can do across campus on the large number of faculty working in data science, in all sorts of fields to create greater synergies. And so if nothing else if you're interested in this read the first five pages of the report, which is a lovely description of how data and computer technology are changing the way we live and in turn changing the way in which academic disciplines are being done. It's a wonderful call to arms in some sense and I'd like to leverage that to really deepen and broaden some of the work on this campus in that area. Lots of things happening in the coming year. As always, we have plenty of challenges in front of us but also a lot of good things I think to be proud of and to look forward to. And so let me stop t here, I'm going to let Rick say a few words and then we'll open up for questions. Rick. >> Thank you. So first, I want to welcome everyone for beginning of the new year and of faculty senate meetings. And in particular, welcome to our new senators and thanks to all of you for serving on the faculty senate. Without your dedication, attention, shared governance would simply not work. A brief word for those of you who are new to the Senate. The Senate meets on the first Monday of the month from October to December, from February to May. The University Committee, which serves as the executive committee of the Senate, meets every Monday throughout the academic year. Both Senate and UC meetings are open to the public, except when dealing with personnel matters. The UC works with the Office of the Secretary of the Faculty and the chancellor to establish an agenda for our Senate meetings. If you ever have any questions about the workings of the Senate, the University Committee or any of the shared governance committees or if you have an issue you would like to discuss with the University Committee or the Senate, please don't hesitate to contact Steven Smith, Secretary of the Faculty and he will get you on the agenda which might first involve a meeting with the UC agenda or the faculty Senate agenda. The Senate is the representative body of the faculty, the University Committee is the voice of the faculty to the administration and a conduit for the administration to convey information back to the faculty. We represent you and thus we are always striving to make sure that communication between the University Committee and the broader faculty is open and transparent. Last year the Office of the Secretary of the Faculty started sending a summary message after each Senate meeting to all senators and alternatives in order to facilitate communication between senators and the faculty you represent. And you will get a summary of this meeting within the week. Each year at this first senate meeting the chair provides an overview of what we expect and hope to be working on over the course of the coming months. Every year this overview has been accompanied by the caveat that we do not know what surprises the state legislature, federal government or other bodies may bring our way. But with that caveat the UC priorities in the coming year include many of the strategies for investment and engagement outlined by the chancellor a few moments ago, as well as the following. Adapting and adjusting our campus hostile and intimidating behavior policies as we learn from their early implementation. Welcoming our extension colleagues to campus and helping them transition to our policies and procedures. Continuing to strengthen and deepen our shared governance processes, including bolstering and adapting our committees in order to help them better do their work. Amending faculty policies and procedures to reflect changes in summer session and other processes, as well as removing redundancies and areas that are unclear. Supporting the Title and Total Compensation effort, especially in relation to faculty supervisors, although faculty titles won't change. Many of you who supervise other staff will need to be going through the possible new titles for those you supervise. Working with our student and staff shared governance colleagues to support, inform, and advise all of our administration, from departments and similar units, to schools, colleges, and divisions, including our brand-new Division of Student Affairs, not to mention, of course, our provost and chancellor. I'd like to conclude with a few words about PROFS, which is the body that advocates on behalf of UW-Madison faculty before the state government, the Board of Regents, members of Congress, and the public. You should have gotten a PROFS legislative update as you came in today. These are distributed at each Senate meeting and you can find supplemental information on the PROFS Facebook and Twitter pages, and their website profs.wisc.edu. I encourage you to become a member of PROFS to support the vital lobbying and informational work that they do. In addition to employing a lobbyist, Jack O'Meara, and an administrator, Michelle Felber, PROFS relies on the dedicated work of its steering committee and other volunteers, including their faculty president, Dorothy Farrar-Edwards. And I'd like to end by recognizing and congratulating all of the faculty who work with PROFS, the Senate, and governance generally. Thank you. >> Questions, issues, anything anyone wants to raise? >> Eric Sandgren, district 113, I have a couple of questions about a draft policy that has been circulated from system and it has to do with productivity in higher education. And specifically talks about the closing of small programs, those that only graduate only a small number over a period of time. And I'm wondering first if you or someone could give us an update on where that stands and what your expectation is for where it might go. >> The provost has been working on this and I'm going to ask her to respond. >> The good news it it's still a draft policy and it's still being revised. And we will be discussing it in our system provost meeting on Wednesday in Parkside. And Jocelyn Milner and I have responded to the drafts, each draft we've gotten with feedback and each version gets better. The latest, the first version we saw had targets for PhD programs and when Jocelyn ran the numbers she discovered that the guides we're using would have eliminated something like a third of all PhD programs in the AAU. So it's probably a little too stringent. And we said let us monitor our own PhD programs and that's in the newest version. But then there was still and they were setting targets for masters' programs and of course there are two types of masters' programs that we have on our campus. Ones that are terminal masters' programs where you set out to get a master's degree and others are PhD programs where along the way the student decides or the faculty and the program decide that the student should decide that perhaps a master's is a better option. And so we have been back and forth just even over the weekend Jocelyn [inaudible] just explaining the terminology for that would be non-admitting master's programs, like you don't start out to get a masters. We don't want to have a large target set that would actually suggest that our PhD programs perhaps were not working well if we're producing lots of those. And so we're trying to get them to back away from regulating those at all, we'll see how that goes. Then the undergraduate programs the guidance has been for many years that on average a program is supposed to graduate five majors a year or an average, it was sort of averaged out for a total of 25 over 5 years, but you can have 4 and you can have 6 and so forth. And then the old policy only looked at programs that were shared by 50% of all UW institutions and that shared by 50% is gone. So now it's looking at all programs and it all used to exempt world languages which is of concern for us. It doesn't now, but we're saying that it should. We also think that it should look at enrollments not just majors because majors, there are plenty of curricula that students take but do not necessarily major in. So it's a work in progress, we're giving lots of feedback. And each draft has gotten better, and I'm pretty comfortable that we'll end up in a pretty good place and that we will be able to regulate the ones that we have. That we have for example a poultry science major that's a consortium major with two or three other ag schools Midwest we never graduate five students a year in that, we never will but we're going to maintain the program. And I think that programs that fall on the list are in similar categories that we will defend them because they need to exist on our campus. So I'll keep you posted. >> Thank you. A similar question on the same topic, what are the mechanisms of shared governance that are being employed as this process is going forward? Because with system it's a little unclear, if it was on this campus I think we would have a better idea. >> We usually just get drafts of policies from system and they ask our feedback on them. And I have talked, I did talk to ASEC and I've mentioned, I believe the UC as well how we're monitoring and revising it and giving feedback. But I don't know, they didn't get our input in developing this policy in the initial development of the policy at least. That was we got a first draft and said please comment and so we've been commenting. >> Thank you, that answers the question very clearly. I'd like to raise a larger issue and this is part of the larger issue. And the larger issue has to do with determination of what is productivity in the context of higher education. Obviously something like that is clearly in the realm of faculty and shared governance and in fact there's a recent scholarship about that, I think some economists have been publishing books about this. And it's very interesting what that material says. And often shared governance is criticized because we supposedly let things get to an emergency situation before dealing with them, that certainly has been an accusation from system. So I'd like to propose that we set up a working group, perhaps a special committee, perhaps the University Committee may want to do this or perhaps an existing committee here to ahead of the game define what we feel is productivity in education. So for example, small programs I can see strong arguments for why it might be very productive actually to keep them, to try to provide exactly the training that niche students want where there aren't a lot of people there but it's just what someone wants. It seems like there's bad criteria, but we all have our feelings about what are good and what are bad criteria now that there is evidence being published. And I would like to suggest that on this campus we establish something that can discuss that. And I don't know if you have any recommendations of how we might go forward with that. >> Why don't we give that to UC and let them think about it and come back yeah. >> The University Academic Planning Council does on a regular, every year look at the list of low enrollment programs and actually we do already as a campus much better job of what I call academic housekeeping than many of the other schools in the system. In fact, we have very few programs that would be affected by this threshold compared to the other system campuses on. And we have done, you know, recreated you know revised majors, renamed them. There are lots of things that our programs do when they see that students, if they have both enrollments dropping and majors dropping our departments want that to change and they change things. So I don't we have, I mean I don't think this policy will really strike us that much because we look at all those things. >> And I think that's a good example of exactly the way it should be these decisions are made at the level where the programs are being offered. And I think to try and create something systemwide one-size-fits-all is probably highly disadvantageous. So I think if we can agree as to what does it mean in general terms to be productive we're going to have far better decisions about how to move forward systemwide and certainly on this campus. So you will be discussing this with the University Committee and coming back is that what you request? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Chad. >> Chad Alan Goldberg, district 71, I have some concerns about the same topic actually, so I'm glad to hear the provost speak to this. I'm very pleased to hear that there have been some improvements in the draft that was previously made public. However I'm not sure that the improvements that you described really get to the heart of the matter. It seems to me that what is fundamentally concerning to me is the way that this document threatens shared governance and it does so in two ways I think. One, is that this document is being developed without the input and participation of the faculty so far as I can determine. So this will be a draft that is put together and finalized without our input and then presented to us, but we won't have any participation in doing that. The other way in which of course this is a threat to shared governance is of course we already have procedures, we're discontinuing academic programs when we need to discontinue them. I don't think anybody in this room would deny that sometimes that's necessary, there are academic and educational reasons to do that. The fundamental issue of course is who has the authority and decision-making power over this. It should really be a faculty decision on the basis of academic and educational criteria. And this policy so far as I understand it is based on the article that I read in Inside Higher Ed and conversations that I've had with other people threatens to take this kind of decision-making power out of the faculty, out of the people who are best-qualified to make these decisions and to make it an automated process to take it out of our hands. This is deeply troubling for a number of reasons. For me this could hit close to home. I am in the sociology department but I am also affiliated with the Center for Jewish Studies, a unit on campus that has a small number of majors which could potentially be affected by a policy like this. I'll leave it at that. >> Can I say something and then I'll let you go? So I'm not going to argue with the way in which this is preceded but I will say something in defense that every system that I know of has policies like that and indeed the system did have such a policy that they are now revising, this is a revision of an existing policy. I think the issue is what the policy should do is it should require that campuses do serious monitoring policing and attention to these issues. This is not directed at us largely because we already do that. There are some other campuses that I think have not been so responsible and that is one of the reasons we're seeing this policy. >> Just to reiterate what the chancellor said, this is a revision of an existing policy and you can look up the existing system policy and that predates me. I don't know when it was first written. But we have been monitoring low enrollment programs the whole time I've been here because of the system policy we have to submit a report to the regents. And then as Becky says, most systems have that, most universities have that. And as long as you plan, as long as you have an explanation, this is a consortium program blah-blah-blah. It's never and as long as we're monitoring that's fine and that's what we want. We don't want any automatic like off with your heads if you don't have five majors graduate every year, it should be our discretion. >> By our I would say the faculty discretion. My question about the previous policy that's being revised, did it have this kind of element where decisions were automated and imposed upon us on, on the basis of certain arbitrarily determined criteria? I don't recall that it did but. >> It's never come up in the time that I've been here so. Anything else, otherwise -- oh yeah, go ahead. >> Kurt Paulsen, district 76 I think, just following up on the same issue. I think the reason this is also of concern not just on the shared governance issues this was probably at our other campuses not so much here. But we're aware of the fact that the tenure laws were changed so that tenured faculty can be fired in case of program discontinuance. So I think there's a lot of concern systemwide that this might be a backdoor policy change to get at elimination of tenured positions. >> I know that discussion, I will say I do not -- I myself do not believe that was what started this discussion. But I was not privy to the beginning either so. If there is nothing else I want to note that on page 11 you have in your materials faculty document 2761 which is highlights of this body's work last year, I draw your attention to that. Yeah. I don't have minutes in my notes. All right, well let me first deal with the page 11 and then we'll go back to the minutes. Are there any changes or are there any questions about the highlights of faculty legislation on page 11? There usually are not. Let us then deal with the minutes from May 7th, 2018, that is one pages two and three of you document. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? If not, those minutes are approved as distributed. Then let me also note that on pages 12 and 14 you have faculty document 2762 which lists the results of the spring 2018 faculty committee general elections. Are there any questions or comments on that election report to the UC? In that case, I'm going to recognize Professor Amasino who's going to move to confirm an appointment, this is on page 15. >> I move to confirm the appointment of Associate Professor Kurt Paulsen from the Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture to serve on the campus planning committee for a four-year term to represent environmental concerns replacing Katherine McMahon whose appointment ended. >> This does not require a second. Are there any discussions or questions? If not, all those in favor indicate by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? That motion carries. Let me now turn to agenda item number eight and recognize Professor Steve Ventura who's going to present a resolution on tenure for UW extension members for our first reading. Steve. >> Thank you, chancellor. You have in your packet a simple motion to affect the transfer of tenure previously granted by the Board of Regents as part of the merger of UW Extension with Madison. As noted, it's based on the language of the merger that the board provided and the recommendation of something called the tenure working group. This was four faculty from UW Madison and four faculty from Extension that deliberated on the question last spring. A preliminary report was presented in this body in May and it's in your packet as well. What it says is effective sometime next summer when the functional joining occurs the rights and responsibility of tenured faculty will be conferred on our Extension colleagues that are joining us. This is the first step in a number of decisions that will need to be made. We probably will be coming back to this body again as additional steps occur in this process. But this is a first and necessary step. Another joint working group is being formed right now to deal with issues particularly related to what the structure of extension will be here in Madison. There are some complicated questions there to say the least and we will be working through that with our Extension colleagues. I would like to briefly mention that a few of them have joined us today that I think represents some of the diversity that Extension will bring. Professor Mike Ballweg is a county extension person. Elmo Rawling is with the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. David Nack is a professor in the School for Workers that actually has already joined us in the division of continuing studies. Who am I missing up there? [ Inaudible ] Folks. Okay so the resolution is before you and I guess we need to act on it or open it up for questions. >> Yes, this is a first reading. >> First reading. >> So there's no vote this is purely discussion. I want to say one clarifying comment, Extension became part of UW Madison as of the 1st of July but the majority of employees did not move into UW Madison they're still reporting to a vestigial unit out there. And that is because there are still a number of unsettled issues about that transfer that we have to work out, this is one of them. >> Chan Alan Goldberg, district 71, I would like to thank and commend the joint working group for all that time and effort put into this to producing this resolution. This is a resolution that I'm strongly in favor of and I know that we're not voting today but I do want to urge other senators to vote in favor of this November. I think this is an important step forward in terms of integrating Extension folks in a fair and equitable way. That said, I do want to correct a couple of points in faculty document 2755, tenured UW Madison and UW Extension. In that document tenure is defined as a guarantee of a continued academic position. I've said before on the floor of the Senate that I believe that that is incorrect. I don't think there's a guarantee of a position there's a guarantee of due process, it means that a university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that the institution is in serious financial difficulty. The document also states that the Board of Regents after. >> What document are you looking at? My document here is document number 2763, are you looking at something different? >> I have 2755 in my packet. >> You do? [ Multiple Speakers ] >> It's the background. >> It's the tenure working group report. >> Right. >> And I think that we acknowledged that last year or last spring. >> If I may continue, one other point that I wanted to make. The document notes that the Board of Regents used essentially the same language as was previously found in state statute. I believe that that is incorrect and I think if we look back at the history of this body that becomes very clear. People who served in this body for the past couple of years will remember faculty document 2586 Resolution on AFT Wisconsin Higher Education Council statement on tenure and indefinite status November 2015. And of course faculty document 2360 resolution on actions by UW system Board of Regents 2016. That was the resolution on which this body voted no-confidence and system president Ray Cross ended the Board of Regents because of changes in tenure provisions that my colleagues Eric Sandgren and Kurt Paulsen alluded to earlier in this meeting. And I will also note that in the document this is not a correction, this is correct as far as I know, the document notes that since February of 2017, all new UW Extension hires have academic staff positions not to new track positions. I would characterize that as elimination of tenure by other means or as a euthanasia of tenured faculty. That is a separate issue, it's not part of this resolution but I did want to flag that. Again I see these as all the more reason to support this document. When we have an opportunity to defend tenure we should take it and this document, this resolution allows us to do just that. >> So noted, thank you. >> Are there other comments? This will come back to you at the next meeting so if anyone has things they want to raise, questions, issues you should bring them to the UC before the next faculty Senate meeting. All right, let me recognize Professor Amasino who's now going to present a resolution on the campus consensual relationship policy for a first reading. This is on page 23. >> So again another first reading, we'll act on this at a future, excuse me, faculty Senate meeting. So you have on page 23 document 2764 which includes a draft resolution in support of the new UW Madison policy on consensual relationships. The history of this policy is explained in the document itself and in brief the UW Board of Regents has handed down a template policy which has been our operating policy since it was created. The main tenet of this policy is that instructors may not enter into romantic relationships with their students or with anyone they reasonably expect to become their students. Representatives of the Provost's Office, the Compliance Office, the Dean of Students Office, and the Office of Human Resources have added some things to the campus version of the policy that you have in front of you. Based on the realities of this campus and with feedback and input from governance, including comments from the University Committee. The primary element of our campus policy that is not in the broader system policy is a discouragement of romantic or sexual relationships between all instructors and all undergraduates. Director of Compliance Cathy Trueba, title nine coordinator Lauren Hasselbacher and others are here today to answer any questions you may have. After this first reading you will vote on this resolution at next month's meeting. At that time you will also vote on a resolution to abolish II-307 which is our existing policy on consensual relationships which this new campus policy supersedes. So it's open now for comments and discussion. >> Surprisingly enough we did not have such a policy in place before. Are there any comments? >> Hi, I'm [inaudible] Taylor, district 51. I just have a question as to what discussion has occurred around this policy regarding graduate students rather than just undergraduate students. This was a question of relationships with undergraduate students specifically was what I heard. >> There's a statement in here that says particular relationships with undergraduates are discouraged, but the policy itself applies to any student who one has supervisory power over whether undergraduate or graduate or might expect to have supervisory power over. So it says that it's inappropriate between a faculty member and any student without specifying graduate or undergraduate where there is a professional relationship. >> And is there a way that professional relationship is defined under this? >> I can read you the language, you know, I was using that to basically refer broadly to. An instructor and a student where the instructor has supervisory, advisory, evaluative or other authority or influence over the student. And where the and I think that's the language that we use all the way through, is that right? And then we go on to say or may reasonably such a relationship in the future. And of course, there's always the ability to self declare and have, you know, so let's say that there's someone who arrives on campus married to someone who starts a graduate program that in some way is in a closely related department. So there is an opportunity here for exceptions, but the general statement is that there is an expectation if you're overseeing a student you should not be involved with them romantically. >> Does this involve, does that supervision include administrative capacities within that student's program of graduate study, like chairs of departments, directors of graduate studies, who are not direct supervisors or on somebody's thesis committee, that kind of thing? >> As I read supervisory, advisory, evaluative or other authority or influence, that certainly includes the administrators in a department. If you're the department chair I think that would mean you probably ought to keep your distance from all students you know that. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone, that's my understanding as we've discussed this policy. Other questions or issues? This too is a first reading, it will come back to you next week. People should read through this carefully. If you have questions or issues you should bring it back to the UC prior to our next meeting. That concludes our agenda and unless anyone has a violent objection I'm going to declare the meeting adjourned. Thank you all, have a good semester.