UW-Madison Faculty Senate
April 1, 2019

>> Chancellor: I am told we have a quorum, so I'm going to call the meeting to order and ask the faculty to rise as you are able for the reading of the Memorial Resolutions. Let me recognize Professor Rick Amasino to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Laurens Anderson.

>> Professor Amasino: Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and PhD Alumnus Laurens Andy Anderson died on November 6, 2018, at the age of 98. He was a world-renowned expert on carbohydrate chemistry and nomenclature and a faculty member in the Department of Biochemistry for 35 years. And he was born on May 19, 1920. He attended the University of Wyoming, graduating in 1942 with a degree in chemistry and a reserve commission in the U.S. Army/Air Force. During World War II, he served as a B24 bomber pilot in missions over Southern Europe. In 1946, Andy and his wife, Doris, moved to Madison where he began his graduate studies in biochemistry. As a graduate student, he worked with biochemist, Henry Lardy, an expert in metabolism of a wide array of compounds including sugars. After earning his PhD in 1950 and following a year-long post-doctoral position in Switzerland, Andy returned to UW Madison to join the biochemistry faculty. Members of the Department of Biochemistry remember Andy as a passionate scientist. He was a most valued mentor, not only to his own students, but also to the many additional students for which he served as a thesis committee member. One of Andy's first major scientific contributions was determining the molecular structure of cyclotols, which are a group of compounds related to sugars. He became a world expert on the structure and chemical synthesis of cyclotols including the inositols, which are a class of cyclotols that have proved they have a central role in biological signaling. This impactful research area yielded more than 800 cyclotol and sugar derivatives, most of which are intermediates in synthetic pathways. Andy's career was filled with service and many awards. He was an editor of the Journal of Carbohydrate Research for a long period and was involved in multiple initiatives with the American Chemistry Society. In 1984, he was awarded the Society's Hudson Award in carbohydrate chemistry. Andy retired in 1986 to become an Emeritus Professor. But he couldn't stay away from the laboratory for long. Just a few years later, he became a visiting senior professor in the Chemistry Department working in the laboratory of Professor Bassam Shakhashiri. There he assisted in mentoring graduates and under graduate students and co-authored a recent paper in the Journal of Chemical Education.

>> Chancellor: Thank you and I'm pleased that Professor Anderson's daughter, Kristine, is here as is his long-time caregiver and almost family member Barbara Houlihan. Thank you for coming. [applause] Let me now recognize Professor Kurt Paulsen from the Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture. He's going to present two Memorial Resolutions, one for Professor Emeritus Phil Lewis and then for Professor Emeritus Ved Prakash.

>> Professor Kurt Paulsen: Professor Phil Lewis passed away on July 2, 2017, at the age of 91. He served a highly distinguished career in the Department of Landscape Architecture from 1964 to 1995. Professor Lewis was a visionary leader and pioneer in concepts underlying geographic information systems technology, for natural resource inventory, environmental planning, and regional design as outlined in his famous book, Tomorrow by Design, A Regional Design Process for Sustainability. Professor Lewis was awarded the ASLA medal and named the Jens Jensen Professor of Landscape Architecture. He and his wife, Elizabeth together were recognized for their devotion to Dane County Parks and Conservation. The Lewis Nine Springs E-Way is named after them.

>> Chancellor: And I want to recognize Professor Lewis' son, Andy Lewis who is also himself a retired professor at UW-Extension. Thank you for coming. [applause]

>> Professor Kurt Paulsen: Professor Ved Prakash passed away in Madison, Wisconsin on August 14, 2018 at the age of 86. Professor Prakash was a faculty member in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning from 1965 to 1998, serving several years as department chair. His academic work centered around international and financial planning for urban and regional development, and he engaged students and colleagues extensively in international research and development projects focused on infrastructure, finance and housing. Ved was devoted to his students and colleagues. He was a significant and important presence in the department and is remembered with great fondness and appreciation.

>> Chancellor: Thank you and now let me recognize Emeritus Professor Bill Tishler from the same department to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Bruce Murray. Professor Bill Tishler: Bruce Murray was a colleague of mine so I'm delighted to be here to present his Memorial Resolution. Bruce taught in the Department of Landscape Architecture, retiring in 1983 after serving as its chairman and later in administration for the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. He graduated from Layton School of Art and later earned Masters Degrees at the University of Wisconsin in art and art education and in urban regional planning. One of his greatest accomplishments was developing the visionary state recreation plan under former Governor Gaylor Nelson. While working with this mentor and colleague, Professor Phil Lewis, Bruce Murray, sharing through his teaching and art were lasting gifts that enriched the lives of many. He passed away at the age of 83.

>> Chancellor: Thank you and I want to recognize Professor's Murray's wife, Liz Murray, who is with us this evening.

[ Applause ]

Let me recognize Professor Tom Sutula to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emerita Hanna Sobkowicz.

>> Professor Tom Sutula: Hanna Sobkowicz, Professor Emerita in Neurology, died on March 31, 2018, at age 87. She was an internationally recognized neuroscientist who studied neurodevelopment and regeneration in organotypic cultures. She joined the faculty in 1966, became the first woman professor in Neurology in 1979, and contributed significantly to interdisciplinary neuroscience on campus beginning in 1960s and 70s when neuroscience was emerging as a major area of modern biology. Her publications typically included ultrastructural photographs of stunning esthetic beauty. She introduced many neuroscientists to techniques of organotypic culture and subsequently contributed to knowledge about structure and features of neurocircuits in the brain in both health and disease.

>> Chancellor: And let me recognize Professor Albrecht Karle to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Stefan Westerhoff.

>> Professor Albrecht Karle: Professor Stefan Westerhoff died on August 5, 2018, at the age of 50 after a long illness. Stefan was born and educated in Germany. He arrived in Madison in 2007 and become a full professor in 2012. A leading pioneer in Particle Astrophysics. Stefan was a key member of the IceCube Neutrino Observatory and the High Altitude Water Cherenkov experiment. In addition to his prolific research and service records, he was a beloved instructor and mentor. We are shocked and deeply saddened by his loss, but we find comfort in knowing that his impact and legacy have immeasurably enriched us and will be everlasting.

>> Chancellor: Thank you all very much. You may be seated. Thank for the friends and family who came today. My report to you this afternoon is not going to be long. I have to be on the direct flight to D.C. this evening because I have an 8 a.m. meeting with some of the delegation tomorrow morning and so I'm going to give my report, take whatever questions there are, and then I'm walking out and the Provost is going to chair the rest of the meeting. And I apologize for being absent, but I have to get to D.C. So I'm on my way. So this will be quick I promise. Let me start with a few updates. Some good news. For the third year in a row, UW Madison has been ranked number one among large schools on the Peace Corps list of top volunteer-producing colleges and universities. There are current 75 Badgers volunteering in countries around the world, and we've been consistently ranked among the top five since 2012. So congratulations to those students and to the international division. We're very proud of this particular distinction. There are three professors at the University of Wisconsin here in Madison who are among the 2019 class of Simons Fellows in mathematics. They were listed with the entire class in the New York Times recently on a big ad. Gheorghe Cracium, Autumn Kent, and Andreas Seeger are among the 48 distinguished scientists to be names to these Fellowships. And congratulations to them and to the Math Department. Last Monday I was honored to help welcome home our women's ice hockey team fresh from their national championship win the day before over at the University of Minnesota. We also celebrated, there were about 1200 people from around the community who came to a big celebration and we also celebrated the national champion swimmer, Beata Nelson, and our two national champion runners, Alicia Munson and Morgan McDonald. It was a wonderful celebration, and if you know any of the students involved in this, send them a note. [applause] I suspect many of you over spring break were reading avidly all the stories about this admission fraud scandal that broke perhaps two and a half, three weeks ago. It's a pretty sordid story with fake test scores and bribery and fraudulent application information. And I'm happy to say we were not a part of it. I might note that no one is immune from criminal fraud when someone wants to really cleverly provide misinformation. Any institution and any individual can be taken in by that. I did take the opportunity to blog about this issue this past week, and I encourage those of you who are concerned about how are we dealing with these issues, and how are we different from some of the schools that were caught up in this scandal. And I encourage you to read that blog. There are a lot of things here that make you proud to be at UW Madison. One is our long tradition of open doors to all students in the state, the way we do admissions, our financial aid support particularly now with Bucky's Tuition Promise to low income students in the state. But it's also true that all of our students, athletes, non-athletes, alumni kids, non-alumni kids, all go through the same admissions process. There are no extra allowances for children of alumni or children of donors. Believe me. I know that because I get the angry letters about this time of year from people whose children do not get in. But I'm very proud of the fact that I can look any student at this university in the eye and say, you got here because of your record of accomplishment and because of the promise of your opportunities here on campus and not because of any else in your family. And let's hope that we can keep our record on that front. As you are aware we're in the midst of the 2019 to 2021 budget debate between the governor and the legislature. This is expected to be a longer process in part because of the divided government situation and the debates that are going to go on. It's true not only for the dollar budget coming to the system and through them through us, but also for our capital budget for new buildings. The capital budget is separate from the dollar support budget, and in late March the State Building Commission deadlocked four to four on a vote of whether they would accept Governor Evers' recommendations. In Governor Evers' recommendations we've support for all of the projects on our campus that we wanted funded. So this means we're now moving to arguing for each of those projects separately by meeting with the legislators who will have decision-making power, particularly those on the Joint Finance Committee. Included in the budget was an addition and renovation to the School of Veterinary Medicine, and addition and renovation for Sellery Hall, and replacement of an auditorium as well as renovations to Camp Randall and the Kohl Center. So if you have crystal connections with any of those building projects and want to be involved in our lobbying efforts with the legislature, you should let me or the Provost or our communications people know. The Joint Finance Committee is clearly going to do some funding with capital budgets, but they're going to put their own proposal together, and we'll simply work hard to make our case. A couple of updates. By the end of this month we hope to have a finalist list of Provost candidates, so watch all the announcements for when those individuals are coming to campus and who they will be. I hope we have good representation from across campus at the open forums for those candidates. The Provost job is an incredibly important one and we need to do good hire on that. As you know over this last month finished all the interviews for a Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education, and I hope we'll have an update on that very soon, but I can't say more about that right now. A couple of announcements. The UW community is invited to a panel discussion sponsored by Profs and the Wisconsin Foundation and Alumni Association about the implications of this current state budget on higher education of Wisconsin. That event should you or any of your college want to attend is free, open to the public on Tuesday, April 2, that's tomorrow, 12 to 1:30. Bring your brown bag lunch in 159 Education. And then I understand there's a slide going up here. I want to remind you that faculty elections for the Senate and a number of faculty elected committees begin today. The election period will end at the end of the day on April 15th or otherwise known as two weeks from today. The slates of candidates were presented at the faculty Senate meeting in February. There should be no surprises there. The access to building software. You know this, but make sure information gets out to everyone in your group. Go to committeetracker.wisc.edu. Log in with your net ID and the software will automatically shuffle you into the right election for your division and you can see the slate as well as the candidate statements. So don't vote often, but do vote early. And make sure that you let your voice be heard. That's what I have on my list to talk about. Are there questions, comments, issues that anyone wants to raise? If not, I'm going to turn the gavel over to the Provost to run the rest of the meeting and I'm heading to the airport. So have a good meeting. I'll look forward to hearing what you do.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Well the next item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes from out meeting on March 4th. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? If there are none, then the minutes are approved as distributed. Next I'd like to recognize Professor Sabine Gross who will present the annual report for the University Library Committee. There you are.

>> Professor Sabine Gross: Thank you Provost Mangelsdorf. I'm not entirely certain what presenting in this context means because we didn't do that the year before. I know you have the report. You have probably read it. I hope you found it commendably brief. As you know the year that was reflected in that report was actually quite interesting in terms of what was happening in the library, mainly focusing around the Master Plan, aka Consultants Final Report. And then of course we had a search and brought in a new Vice Provost for Libraries. So I think mainly I need to answer any questions that you might have. If you want to I can very briefly summarize the main issues that led to a lot of comments, discussions, events, etc. around the Master Plan, and that resulted in the University Committee charging the Library Committee with providing a sort of commentary and report on the Master Plan, which we did. Both of those documents are on the library website under Master Plan because one of the things that the University Committee did was encourage the relevant committees to only present those two documents in conjunction. So that is also happening in terms of archiving. I have also seen to it that most of the documents, not every single email, but a lot of the explicit comments that we received have been archived in the library and can be found. So that if people want to go back to this discussion, those documents have not been lost. If there are no questions, then I will assume that our report was not only commendably brief, but also had exemplary clarity that has allowed everybody to take in the information, and I will be happy to leave you with that. Thank you.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Thank you Sabine. Next I would like to recognize Professor Teresa Adams who will present the annual report for the Campus Transportation Committee.

>> Professor Teresa Adams: Good afternoon. I too am not sure what it means to present this report. You have a copy of the report. I assume you've read it. If there are any questions. Okay. So I'll leave you with just one tidbit of information. I found out recently that actually our campus is, as far as parking is concern, we have the second most restricted parking availability in the nation. [laughter] So I'll leave you with that. And the first is that UW Seattle. [laughter]

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: For clarity sake, I should add that the city of Madison restricts the number of parking spaces that we can have on campus. This is not just our own decision. We work with the city on that. Next I would like to recognize Professor Rick Amasino who will present information on Senate apportionment.

>> Professor Amasino: So in document 2820, which you have, is some information on how the UW Extension faculty will be incorporated into the faculty Senate once they officially transfer over to UW Madison. As noted in the document, the faculty in the Department of Labor Education will be added to the district that already exists in the Division of Continuing Studies, which is their new home. And the faculty and Cooperative Extension will be incorporated into a new district. This new district will conduct elections later in the summer and the new Extension senators will join the faculty Senate in the fall. Also note that there's a second page in document 2820, which outlines a change that will need to be made to FP&P next year, once the merger with UW Extension is complete. The Senate will vote on this change in FP&P in the fall, and the next regular reapportionment -- [phone ringing] excuse me -- the next reapportionment will also then be in the fall incorporating the Extension of changes. So all of this was just for your information of things that will be coming.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Next I'd like to recognize Professor Jenna Loyd who will move adoption of a resolution calling on the TSA Review Committee and TIAA to address certain transparency issues. Didn't we already have the first reading on this? Yea.

[ Inaudible ]

>> Professor Jenna Loyd: So as you recall, we had the first reading on this resolution last month and so I would like to move that we adopt this resolution calling for transparency with regard to deforestation risks and a rural land grab. May I have a second please?

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: We will open the floor for discussion, questions, comments. Quiet group today. [laughter]

[ Inaudible ]

No questions or comments. Ready for a vote then?

>> Professor Jenna Loyd: This is not an April's fools?

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: No, it's a real resolution. All those in favor of the resolution say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: All those opposed? I think I heard one nay. Okay. All right. Next I would like to recognize Professor Rick Amasino again who will present a series of motions regarding Academic Staff Titles.

>> Professor Amasino: So these will be about the use of the professor term as we discussed in first readings before. And the University Committee has proposed this in three resolutions or one for each particular title. So the first is I'll move adoption of Faculty Document 2776, which is to approve the creation of a new academic staff title series of Teaching Professor. This proposed title has been in front of you twice before with very little comment or question. The resolution did not specify possible prefixes for this title although the supplemental materials do. To make sure that everyone's clear on this title, I'm moving adoption with the specification that this title's approved with assistant associated and no prefix to denote full as indicated on the screen behind me.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Now we don't need a second on this because UC is making the motion, but I do open the floor up for discussion.

>> [inaudible] 352 Computer Science. So can you -- we have all worked, I can see the language of this, but the language of this reads as we relinquish certain powers that we have that restrict the association -- the titles of professor to anyone in the university without out permission or general permission. So how is it going to be used assuming that we vote yes for this motion or adopt the motion of the committee? And who is going to give whom this title and under what criteria? So if we look at the assistant professor, associate professor, or full professor in our [inaudible], we know exactly how it works. And we know exactly how far it can be abused and how far it is protected and so on. What kind of protection will we have that this mechanism by whoever would have the authority to give these titles to is not going to abuse and making misuse of the authority that we give by [inaudible].

>> Professor Amasino: It will be up to the departments to decide for example if they want to appoint someone as an Assistant Professor of Teaching.

>> Would there be a review process like we have with a usual assistant professor or associate professor or full professor? Would there be a division of committees that will have to approve it? Would it be deans that need to approve it like in the present set up?

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: It would be just in the way that in the faculty associate title series for academic staff who teach. They have a title series and there are ways in which they can be promoted and that is determined by their department.

>> Yea. And the standard at the university is that an associate professor [inaudible] tenure of an assistant professor is a probationary position. Is that going to be the same deal?

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Keep in mind these are not tenure tract positions. Yes, the assistant professor position if you didn't do well in it, you probably wouldn't be kept on and you wouldn't advance to the next Associate Teaching Professor.

>> So neither of these positions is going to be protected by the tenure protections that we have at the university?

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: These are not any more than our clinical faculty in the Health Sciences or our teaching associates.

>> I see. Thank you.

>> Hello, Lisa Everett, Physics. So I have actually written some comments to the University Committee expressing my concern about this vote that you're asking for today about handing over control of the word professor in job titles away from the faculty, which is what all three of these resolutions are asking us to do. Okay, to hand them over to administrators where the job descriptions as far as I can tell and what was explicitly stated in the last faculty Senate meeting was that it's not our job to worry about the details of these titles and the job descriptions. We're just here to approve the use of the term professor for positions that are going to be defined in detail later as part of this titling and compensation study. I find this logic somewhat inverted. It seems to me that if we're going to decide whether a certain job should merit the use of the word professor in the title, we should know explicitly and in some finalized form what the actual job duties would be and what the criteria for the selection of the candidates, what their role would be in terms of governing. Also to things in the department. All of this is unclear and we keep getting more and more materials, which I've read in detail and I still don't find the situation much clearer. I know these titles have become something that other campuses have used, and if you look up what those other campuses state in those job descriptions, there's a very specific set in each of these cases what these things are supposed to mean. I don't see that reflected here, and in particular, what I heard even last meeting when somebody brought up the question of whether an appointment -- this was for Professor of Practice -- was a terminal appointment or renewable. It just was said this is not our domain. This is not our concern. That's a concern of the titling and total compensation study, which is run by administrators. So I'm saying this as somebody who myself was in soft money positions that might have been considered for Research Professor or thereabouts for quite a few years, many years before I came here as an assistant professor more than 10 years ago. So I'm saying this as somebody who recognizes the need for professional development and opportunities and recognition and frankly salary support and better benefits for people who are in these positions. So it's not to belittle anything that they're doing. I'm just very concerned about what we're being asked to do today. I feel like at some point somebody, perhaps in years when tradition of faculty governance, which I was told of in detail when I got here more than 10 years ago, acted to protect the use of the word professor as being something governed by the faculty. I believe what we are being asked to do today is to relinquish that. That's it. And no matter what at the end of all these whereas clauses and no matter what statements are there in bold at the end about how we don't want this to be used as arguments against hiring more faculty positions, I think it's very clear that that's already going on. And this will only further open that door whether or not we have statements in a document that we vote on like this. So if you do decide to relinquish this control as we're being asked to do, do it with that knowledge, that that's the implication as just one of the many things to be considered. Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>> Mark Edsel, District 11. I'd also like to speak against this motion. I get really confused with the titling up here in Bascom Hall even. We have assistant, associate, vice chancellor. It gets really confusing and when you start mixing and matching words instructor with professor, research associate with professor, I look at these academic staff titles and I think Teaching Professor, but it's not somebody with tenure, it's somebody who's an academic staff. Research Professor -- it's not somebody with tenure, it's an academic staff person. I think it's really not good for us to purposefully mislead and confuse students as to who's a professor and who's an instructor. But what this is doing by mixing and matching titles is to confuse and mislead people. I really don't think it's a step forward. I think it's just a step into the muddy waters of confusion of titles.

>> Bruce Barrett, Family Medicine Community Health. I'm not sure which way to vote, but I'd like to share a little information and then ask a question. In the medical school we have lots, a vast, vast majority of M.D., D.O. faculty, our CHS Clinical Health Sciences, and they have promotion

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: They have [inaudible] professors.

>> Two full professor from assistant professor to associate professor to full professor, and it is not governed entirely from within the department at all to be promoted, to be hired in the first place, and then to be promoted. Your case and your CV and your accomplishments during the probationary period have to be taken to the school. So my question is are the other departments around campus who are going to have these job titles going to have review of the promotion packet outside of the department, or is it truly going to be within the department?

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: I would assume it would be at the school or college level for promotion. The packets would have to be put forward from the department.

>> But has that structure been outlined yet?

>> Professor Amasino: I suspect that what will go on as this is again a departmental decision, how to use these titles, and it will have to go through the HR process. So the college or other unit above the department will have to have criteria that are met in order to approve the use of the title, which is true for any title that --

>> And I would lean towards waiting before approving this until we see an actual interdepartmental school level or college level review so that a -- we have a lot of small departments here and they could easily make big mistakes if there wasn't outside review. So I would really like to see a review promotion structure of what are the committees, how will they be elected, not appointed, how will they be elected, and then who will be reviewing the promotions before I would vote in favor.

>> Professor Amasino: I'll add that departments of course can make mistakes with any title they hire. These are not tenured positions. When mistakes are made, there are ways to deal with them regardless of the title. The bottom line here as I see it is that there are many departments that have very -- and I'm going to restrict the comments. I realize the conversation here has become general about all the titles. But focusing on the Teaching Professor title, there are many departments who have very dedicated staff who teach at a very high level and our peer institutions do have the Professor of Teaching title, Teaching Professor title for these individuals. So this is about enabling departments to reward such talented people with this title. This body may not agree with that, but at least for this first motion, that is, I think, the essence of it.

>> My name is Phillip Barak, District 19, Soil Science. My department when presented with the current proposals to create these professor titles, Professor of Teaching, immediately thought of distinguished academic staff, colleagues whom we would love to honor with such titles. However upon reflection the public would not recognize the distinction between academic staff professors and the tenured track professors such as us. Neither would the students who are undergraduate and graduate students with whom we work understand that difference. Further authorizing the use of the professor title yet more widely than currently used would be another step towards universities with professors with less and less academic tenure. It stands to reason. As it happens, I was the faculty senator when this last came up in 2001 and I recall the debate and legitimate good faith differences in opinion. The majority voted against this proposal then and it's very much the same proposal and with great respect to the committees that prepared the proposal and considered it this time and their good intentions, this proposal should be defeated in 2019 too.

>> Betsy Stovall district 63, mathematics. I would oppose this motion and will also oppose the other too. I want to say that, I mean we've been told that the process by which these titles will be awarded will be determined later and mistakes might be made along the way but they're fixable. But when the public sees these mistakes and sees titles that mimic the titles of tenured faculty they are not going to see the possibility that these mistakes can be fixed. It's confusing. It obscures the reality to the public of who has a permanent position and who doesn't. And so when these are voted for it needs to be done right. And let's not obscure voting, confuse the relationship between supporting this motion and supporting our colleagues. I think we can support our colleagues and say that this motion, it's not yet ready and that more work needs to be done.

>> Jeremy Rogers, district biomedical engineering. I appreciate a lot of the opinions. I've heard a lot of people that are concerned about the sort of delusion of the professor title. And it strikes me that for all of these titles this is an opportunity to promote those that are really top tier and retain top talent. And I think that most of our peer institutions, many other institutions I've been at, have these titles. And I think in terms of confusion on titles associate, faculty associate, is also quite confusing, that's what we have now. So I think in some ways this actually brings a lot of clarity to the titles. But I also think that it's importance to recognize that a lot of other institutions already do this and we're basically, if this is a principled thing where we're going to try to retain clarity between the professor title we've lost that already across institutions throughout the United States. I think if we don't catch up we're hamstringing ourselves and our ability to retain top talent and recruit top talent. [applause]

>> Hi, Thomas Glen, [phonetic] Business 24. I'm against this and again not because of the lack of respect for what these people do. They're enormously important. But names matter, titles matter and this title matters. It's near sacred. And we're in a battle of hearts and minds with the public and with government to maintain some of this specialists and I don't see any way this is not a diminution of the notion of the tenured professor, which we're already, the data digest shows us to be still in a downward track on how many we have. So this is a time I think that the specialness of this title should be retained.

>> Jenna Nobles, [phonetic] district 71. I really appreciate this debate and I think it's important to be careful about thinking about how we proceed. I am certainly open to the idea that we could revisit this. I also want to be very careful that we're not combining a discussion of holding sacred a title and withholding a bunch of things from some of our colleagues who would benefit a great deal from having them, right? And so I'd like to know a little bit more about what kinds of costs have showed up at other institutions where some of these titles have been used. And I think this is a really important point because we have a number of extraordinary staff on this campus and many of them are soft money jobs. It is necessary to keep those positions funded and that is the hard thing to do. It's an increasingly hard thing to do, right? And having that title, as many of us did on study sections, it is a meaningful thing to do and it's something that happens at most other institutions. And so coming up as a scientist in a world where almost everybody else is applying as a research professor or a professor of some kind, is a disadvantage. So I just want to weigh this balance and be careful that something we're trying to hold on tight to isn't necessarily at odds with opening up the doors for increasing the scope and capacity of what our research staff can do. I will say that I'm particularly in a case where we have several research staff who are trying to be, who are being poached by places like Michigan and Ohio state and we would really like to keep them here, they're excellent people. Ok, thanks.

[ Applause ]

>> Professor Amasino: I just wanted to add that that argument is really applies to the next motion that we're going to consider for research professor and I hope you might be willing to elaborate on that when we get to that next topic.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Though I would say, Rick, the competitiveness of not having the teaching titles also applies in recruiting good people and retaining good people.

>> Professor Amasino: I was referring to the procurement of research dollars.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Exactly, exactly. Who was here first? You were?

>> I think I'm next, Claude Woods, district 48, chemistry department. There's always possibility of unintended consequences to anything we do. The intended consequences to reward people who are already here. I wonder if somebody would comment on the possibility that in the future the fact that such titles exist will be used in a different way then what we might use them right now, mainly to hire nontenured track people to replace tenured track people to the advance various nefarious goals. So I mean how do we know what this is going to be used for 10 years in the future, 15 years in the future?

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: But you don't even know how that's being used with the faculty associate series as the same implications, right? But most of our gen ed and our intraduct gateway courses, most of our departments are taught by our faculty associates. So we've sort of gone down that path already, I think to some extent, with different titles, titles that are not recognized nationally.

>> Doug Rhinal district 42, speaking in favor of this motion and the next two that will come, for the exact reasons that was just stated that we are getting good people poached from this institution. We can't attract good people to this institution without this sort of titling series.

>> [inaudible] of the math department, district 60 something. I don't want to speak for or against this, I just wanted to point out that I think, you know, having seen the math department over the last 35 years I don't think the assumption that we're making that the title professor is something that is immutable and does not evolve is valid. There were, if I think back to the people that were there when I was hired, there were a lot of people there who, and I say this with all the respect, they were great people, we would not hire them now as faculty. We have to do much more exacting and demanding in who we hire. We have hired excellent researchers because of this our department has shrunk from roughly 70 when I was there to about 43 now. A lot of those people, those places that are you know, positions that are not here anymore, there were people who were doing, who were undergraduate adviser, who were doing all kinds of things that we now ask academic staff to do. So the notion of professor has changed over time. I think that's something to keep in mind.

>> Noah Feinstein, community environmental sociology. I am going to vote in favor of this resolution and the subsequent too. But I do want to speak about that decision and to acknowledge it as a difficult one. I think we all know that the process by which some people wind up being tenured track faculty and others wind up being staff is not an entirely rational process. Under the circumstances which might lead a superb teacher and researcher to take a staff job are the circumstances that govern all of our lives, why we move, where we move, why we stay, where we stay, why we take the jobs that we do and why we leave them. I know staff researchers and staff teachers who I consider to be better researchers and teachers than myself and I do think that that in combination with the need to acknowledge the competitive labor market place and also to support the idea of a good and respectful job for all of our colleagues, is what ultimately inclines me to vote for these resolutions. I do think that they require us. They are in intervention in public discourse and they require us as an institution to become good at explaining differences which we have become lazy about and have leaned back on the word professor when there are already other fine distinctions that matter. We will need to explain to reporters the difference. And we may ultimately need to explain by one person with the title professor is more fireable than another person. These are serious issues and issues that we will need to confront and knowing that, saying that, I still plan to vote for these resolutions. [applause]

>> [Inaudible] Armstrong, district 52, computer science. I think that when we hear the argument against we hear two different argument against and it's probably important to distinguish between these two line of thinking in this regard. One argument says that as a matter of fact the entire idea of introducing those kind of titles is inadequate for our university. And there's a different line of argument that says that maybe this is a good idea but relinquishing the prerogatives that we have as a senate to administrator is without a clear set of rules how this is going to be done may not be in our best interest today and we want to vote against this so we will get a clearer motion coming to us. And this is not going to contradict those, the things in favor of it, only says that I do not know if I vote yes what I voted for. And if I vote against I know that I send a message to the university committees if they want the endorsement of the senate for moving forward, please come up with something that we understand that when we relinquish our authority and give it to somebody else that somebody else is going to use it in this way, not in that way, because otherwise we give a carte blanche to somebody to do as they see fit. And the common guiding principal in this university is the governance is by the faculty, not by the administrator. And this looks like moving a certain set of authorities exactly from the senate, or from the faculty, to administrators without a set of rules that would govern how this going to be used. Thank you.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Just to clarify, it would be the faculty in each department that would determine who would get these roles, these titles, and when they would get promoted.

>> So who is going to be deciding how, let's say that we vote for this resolution or for the two subsequent resolutions, ok now what would be the next steps? Because in the motion there is nothing specific that is being said what would be the next step. And how we are going to ever guarantee that whatever you're telling us today is going to be the reality next year when you're not with us anymore, right?

>> Professor Amasino: So teaching programs come from departments so departments are in control of those teaching programs. And departments will decide whether they have individuals who they think merit this title.

>> And there will be no oversight because now if the department wants to give, say even an assistant professor, which is probationary, to give faculty or to give an employee, there is an oversight. They cannot do that. Not only do they need a budget, they need more than a budget in order to create an assistant professor position. And now you're saying as a matter of fact the department should have the need to have the budget and should need to have the discussion in order to create this position and then the department can do it.

>> Professor Amasino: Yes and that's true of course for a position like associate faculty associate, which is a teaching position. The department has to have the budget for it. The department has to decide what the appropriate title for their individuals who are doing teaching is. So it's still under departmental control.

>> So you're saying it's going to be similar like faculty associate today?

>> Professor Amasino: Yes. And the lack of complete definition is it's hard to establish one and that's because these are academic staff, HR in each college will have to be involved in working out the definitions but it's up to departments as to who they wish to appoint these titles.

>> Donald Stone, material science and engineering. So when I first learned about this I was intrigued by the possibility of certainly honoring some people who would quite deserving say an engineering, you bring somebody in who has a long practice of working in industry but who doesn't have any teaching credentials, you bring them in to give lectures, things like this.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Now you're referring to the third resolution. It's a practice one, right?

>> But I see parallels through all of this, right, but I think that the points that have been made about the possibility of this could be abused, hurting not only the faculty as a whole but also the people that we would bring in to teach. I see that in a future state administration that they might try to do that and that they would work around faculty governance which has been weakened anyway. But I would also, so I have that as a concern. But I would also ask the people who brought up the notion that we're already losing people because we don't have these job titles. Is that the real reason that we're losing them or are there other considerations? For instance salary or positions available, things like that. So I am skeptical to say the least.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Well there's certainly have been, I know more about cases of recruitment for not having these titles was a problem then retention. Anymore be, in order to allow enough time to discuss each one of these resolutions so far we're focused on the first one about the teaching professor title series. Do you have any last comments about this before we take a vote on it? Is this just about the teaching professor?

>> Yes it is.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Ok.

>> Yes I move that we postpone indefinitely the item number nine.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Item number nine, just the teaching professors. Ok, alright, is there a second.

>> I second.

>> Do the discussion first.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Alright all those, now we have to have a discussion about postponing indefinitely the use of ever voting on these titles.

[ Inaudible ]

Wait a second, right now we have a resolution.

[ Inaudible ]

You need to use the microphone.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Use the microphone. Yeah you have to go to the mic and

>> I think that this is an important decision for the senate and not only that we want to know what the outcome is and what the majority is we want to know the count. So we see the position of the senate also note as a Boolean decision 1 0. But there's a quantitative decision to see how the split is in the Senate because we have the opinions and the opinions vary, right? So I suggest for the good of the senate and for the good of us that the vote will be conducted by hand counted vote.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: What are you referring to? A hand counting vote on the resolution that's on the floor which is about postponing indefinitely.

>> If this was a motion to postpone indefinitely is approved, is voted yes. That will be the only resolutions that we vote because we will not vote on the full resolution once we table the, why the vote is yes to table. So there might be only one vote.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: That's what I was asking, no he wants the other which can't be because the resolution is on the floor to postpone[inaudible]. So we could take that vote, the one you're referring to, if the resolution to postpone, the motion to postpone fails. But otherwise we can't go back and take an up or down vote right now because there's a motion on the floor to postpone indefinitely the vote at all.

>> But then the full motion is not going to be voted. If the vote to postpone prevails we will not know the count.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: If it fails then we will go back

>> Ok, look [inaudible].

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Oh that's what he wants the count on? Well then we can

>> We don't want to vote whether we want to see the vote. It's simple to see the vote without voting's that we want to see it.

[ Inaudible ]

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: But that's not, he doesn't want a hand count on the motion to postpone. So you want a hand count on the motion to postpone.

[ Inaudible ]

You are right, you are right so at this point so is that, then is he making a motion to do, no. [inaudible] Alright so at this point we'd like to just do a hand count on this motion to postpone but people can speak to it first, I guess.

>> Doug Randall district 42. Can I ask a question procedurally? What does it mean to be postponed indefinitely?

>> Well your guess is

>> Parliamentary procedure.

>> Jake Smith, parliamentarian, the motion to postpone indefinitely effectively will kill the motion for the duration of this session which will end in May. It can be brought back in a new session which would begin in October of 2019.

>> I would speak against the motion. I think we ought to vote this up or down. This is an academic staff issue. I'm not sure why people are sort of hung up on what's the progression, what's the appointment of title? What's the promotion? It's academic staff. There's very clear HR procedures and policies that we have in place.

>> Mark Etsel, [phonetic] district 11. So I'm going to vote in favor of the motion to postpone indefinitely. There's a lot of questions that still remain with people about how this will be implemented, what it means. You know anybody who's had children would find it not salable if your child comes up and says well everybody else is doing it. How many parents think that's a good way to make a decision? And so what I hear from the administration and other people is everybody else is doing it. I also find it odd that the administration is arguing for the motion and the faculty are arguing against the motion. And it seems like the chair, the committee, should really not be speaking for the motion but should just be trying to be neutral on it. And so this seems to have a real administrative push. And given that we've had a faculty governance was attacked recently and there's been this top down movement in the university. Faculty governance has been weakened. I really find that very distasteful that the administration is pushing for this so I just don't find that there's a, we're not at a point right now where people feel like they understand this well enough to vote strongly for it. That's why I'm moving to postpone indefinitely.

>> Dan Oist, I don't know my district number, sorry, chemistry.

>> Forty eight.

>> I've only been in the university for a few years but I've been in another number of institutions and I guess listening to the discussion I don't see what was just discussed. I would urge us not to just delay this for no apparent reason that I can see. The information is all there. The person in charge of the committee is arguing for it because the committee brought it forth. They wouldn't have brought it forth if they thought it had no merit. The provost is just answering questions. I don't think that there's some nefarious purpose. Indeed the people involved in crafting this are all your colleagues, right? And not everybody is speaking against it. There were some impassioned speeches for it. I think giving the late hour, you know, the staff deserve to hear up or down. If it's down, it's down, that's fine. But just tabling indefinitely seems a little bit kind of playing to everyone's, the negative things they say about the faculty senate that it's some parliamentary like more ass, right? Let's take a stand, whichever it may be. And I may speak in favor of the motion later but I speak strongly against the motion to table.

>> Lisa Everett, Physics, I just wanted to speak to the comment that I believe was made earlier about not understanding what the issue is, why people are confused and why they're asking all these procedural details, well the reason why is because we were told there's part of, there's a titling and compensation study which is evaluating many aspects of these things that various details are influx. We were told at the last faculty senate meeting that the question about a particular one of these titles. Inconsistencies pointed out in the document we were told, that's not our concern. Just, the issue is really just to allow people to go forward and use these titles before the job descriptions are created. So if it is true as what you say and there's just academic staff and it's all clear and everything's 100 percent as they're giving to us right now, is that true? Is this what we can be promised in the titling and compensation study? I thought that there was a study ongoing where what we're trying to do now is to give them permission to use these titles as they create this new system in the HR. So if this is 100 percent it then in principle we could be voting on what's the material given. But if that's true I would say that the last senate meeting we were given misinformation then when we said this is not necessarily the final version of anything. Don't worry about all these details. This is the reason why we're bringing this up, not because we want to define and detail what academic staff positions are supposed to be. Believe me I don't want to do that but I want to know what it is that I'm voting for. And I don't think I do.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: So I think if I can answer a little bit of that. I might call on my colleague Mark Walters for clarification but in the titling and total compensation study it is true that they are providing, the firm that the university hired is providing us pure data on titles. So at other research one university what did their title series look like. And one question, as we discussed here today many other universities have this title series. So before we go down a path where we'd be recommending that the only way those titles could possibly be used on this campus would be if this body approved the use of those titles, just as this body approved the use of the clinical professor title series a number of years back.

>> I understand but as I think I've said now several times, I'll just say it one more time, if we were given a set of things saying these are the jobs, these are the things we're going to have, these are the compensation, you are now the ones at the moment who have the control over the use of the word professor in the titles. This is the data on which you should look at, make your decision, vote. If that's true I think we can all look at it and we can decide for ourselves whether we think they should be called professor or not, given the context, given all the comments we can see there's a diversity of opinions. There's many factors. I for one don't think it's a simple thing, by the way. I'm not 100 percent on any side. I'm just trying to say that I find the confusion of trying to say let us have the titles now and we'll fill in all the details later. I find that worrisome.

>> Professor Amasino: I just wanted to provide some information to remind everyone of the pathway. There's this titling and compensation committee. It's incredibly broadened the number of things that are being tackled. But then there was a committee that was a faculty majority that was tasked with the very specific issue of whether we might consider using the professor position the way we're discussing. And that committee reported to the faculty senate, unfortunately I don't think there are members of that committee here today but they were present for previous readings of things. And again these are academic staff not tenured positions. So it will be a part of the HR system to work with colleges and departments to define within a unit such as a college what the criteria are. Again we're, I just want to remind people we're, the question before us basically is whether we want to grant departments the ability to use this title. Not all departments need to choose to use the title. We're granting departments the ability to do so.

>> I would agree that there's still too much left unknown and too much deference to administration on this. The greater harm between the two, and I would like closure as much as anyone, but the greater harm is to extend this title, make a mistake, and be sorry. But you can't put that toothpaste back in the tube. Once you extend this title to others it's going to, if it's a bad decision it will be a hard one to undo. On the greater point the number of tenure track faculty has been declining, that slope that's in the data digest that just came in, is a very worrisome slope. The things we traditionally called faculty, the people we traditionally called faculty are declining. And assuming budgets to be constant sums where is it growing? It's growing in nontenure track instruction and administration. I like more tenured track faculty. And I think if anything it does to confuse, whether it's legislatures or the press or the public, about what a professor is is a disservice.

>> Yes I'm Dean Moser from, I think it's 97, biomedical chemistry. So I'm talking based on 43 years in the medical school and I'd like to harken back to what Bruce Barret said. I've watched the CHS track evolve over all that time. And in the department of medicine while we really are a single faculty of full, you know, tenured track and CHS and we all meet as a group. And I think that one of the reasons that CHS title means something is it means something to the whole department and that there is a process for promotion and advancement. And I think within the medical school we now have, I think, single roles which the medical schools work out because some of the departments really did abuse the titles, which is, I think these titles would mean more if we really sat down and defined, you know, at a school level how we were going to use them, you know, and how that tenured faculty could really have input into the promotion of these people.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Agreed but I think the schools and colleges did not want to do that if they weren't granted permission from the senate to even think about it.

>> Hi my name is Alyssa Francy. [phonetic] I'm academic staff actually in German Nordic Slavic. I don't know what my district is for these purposes, sorry. I'm not going to speak in favor or against the resolution, I just wanted to be an academic staff presence at this meeting. I've been academic instructional staff here at EW for, this is my fifth year now, in a couple of different departments and I've heard lots of thoughtful commentary on this resolution and also lots of questions. So I really just want to urge and encourage you to reach out to your academic staff colleagues in your department and find out what their perspective on this is, find out what their concerns are and their position about titles, job security, pay, it would be very meaningful to them, I'm sure. Thanks.

[ Applause ]

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: We should go back to the resolution about whether to take a, that's what we were supposed to be discussing, the vote on whether or not to, just a show of hands, about whether to postpone indefinitely [inaudible]. He'll count them, ok, just the vote on. Ok so we're going to call the vote to postpone and this would be to postpone indefinitely. All those in favor of postponing indefinitely. And Lindsey will help. Which, are you guys dividing sections? All those opposed to postponing indefinitely. I think that wins. They want to count.

>> It is 103 to 27, fails 103 to 27.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Ok so the motion fails 103 to 27.

>> Yeah.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Ok so now we're back to the original resolution on faculty document 2776. Is there further discussion or are we ready for a vote?

>> I'm sorry if I can make one more comment, I think I'm in district 51, I'm the alternate for [inaudible] is usually here. And I'm in the unique position that I've been, I've lost academic staff for a couple years before I got the chance to reapply to a position in my department as tenured tracked which I did, which I got and which I'm now doing. And so the line that was pointed out between academic staff, the work of academic staff and actually faculty is to some extent very blurry. And when I look at the title of professor of course that is very, very appealing. And when we look across the country how the professor titles is used we look at institutions that are, that we would not call our PS, maybe teaching institutions, all carry the title professor. My students, many of them call my TAs professors. They don't know. They're thinking this is instructional staff and they call them professor. The only thing that I'm asked when I go to a conference is not what kind of professor are you, they as me are you tenured track? That's what they're asking me and this is what it comes down to. The title itself in the United States is very, very vague and we call professor whoever has an instructor position regardless of the, what's actually the meat of the position and then everybody, and you know, people explain what it is. So I'm not saying, I'm not here or there but I think a good point can be made that the title, you know we think of [inaudible] like the name itself means something. I think in American academia it is very vague what it is and some professors at some institutions are less trained and have less experience then the academic staff that I had the privilege of working with when I was academic staff, just one clarifying point, thank you.

>> Hi my name is Lee Orf [phonetic]. I work at the Space Science and Engineering Center as an academic staff. I was also a full tenured professor at Central Michigan University. I also served as department chair. I sat on the academic senate. So I also have seen both sides. I came here because of research. I know we're discussing the talking but since we're sort of mixing it up I just wanted to say that I am in favor of this. I also wanted to say that I have graduate students that probably wouldn't be here if it wasn't for my grant money, and I'm not interested in becoming a tenure track professor anymore. I don't want tenure. I don't need tenure for my position. I'm not trying to take away anyone's tenure, if that's sort of a concern that people have. But I just wanted to say that it just would make my life a lot easier when I -- and it will be easier for people to understand what I do. I'm an associate scientist. I'm associated with something. I'm a scientist. You know, I sometimes forget my title. I'm a researcher. I'm a scientist. Well, a research professor is a known entity in this country and, again, I would encourage you to listen to the folks who are saying that this is a departmental thing when it comes to whether you're going to use these titles. I understand the concern. Believe me, I have been watching things going on. I totally understand how faculty are getting -- how the academy is faring. Okay? I speak very knowledgeable of that situation. But I'm still in favor of this because I really think it's, and it's not just "do it because everyone else is doing it". Doing it because it works. It's like a standard. Think of it as becoming more of a standard. We really are sort of holding ourselves back a little bit, I think, by keeping these out of date titles. But, thank you for your time.

[ Applause ]

>> Hi. Chris Cascio, School of Journalism and Mass Comm. Sorry, I don't know the division number. Just for clarification, then, if this goes through and this is up to the departments to make decisions, will Faculty Associate then still be allowed to be used? Or must it be changed to Teaching Professor or one of these other titles?

>> What did the committee recommend on that?

>> Professor Amasino: I think what -- the titles that we eventually end up with will be a function of the titling committee. But I think, without a doubt, there will be titles for teaching staff that are not Professor available to departments.

>> So, I guess, one of the concerns amongst the teaching faculty, faculty associates, in our department is will, depending on their terminal degrees, what they have, will they be allowed to be promoted to Assistant Teaching Professor or will they be moved to Instructor Administrator? I don't remember the exact title, but will it go in one direction or the other? Or will it be solely up to the department to make that decision?

>> That's -- I don't even know the answer to that.

>> Professor Amasino: The department will make decisions within the titles that your college HR department has available to them.

>> Good afternoon. My name is Fariba Assadi-Porter. I'm in Department of Integrity of Biology and I am senior scientist. I have been in position of research professor in another university and I can see both sides of argument has made today. Initially, before I took the position for research professor, I was very doubtful of, you know, such a title as research professor. However, based on what I hear today and based on my experience in the past, I believe this is enabling all of our qualified scientists or research title versus also teaching title that can accomplish in their own career, where they do not want to be tenure track position, but they want to be in a competitive position that they can also promote their own career so they can also be rewarded for their work that they do in institution. So this title series is really questioned or requested from this research committee to basically enable the HR to be able to then grant that to other departments. And as it is defined here, it's up to departments to define what kinds of criteria they want to, you know, set for their research faculty or teaching faculty within their own department. Those criteria cannot be defined here by the Senate and I don't believe this could be very productive from the standpoint of, if I don't understand what it means with great details that I do not want to support this, but look at all the other institutions that are successfully using research faculty or research professorship or teaching professorship in a very beautiful way and to have put away the negative thoughts and allow a progression of a new era in this institution where we need it after so many years. So that's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

>> John Eason, District 71, Department of Sociology. This is my third university and this is the first one I've been at where there wasn't a clear distinction between a research professor, a teaching professor, and the like. I think this actually -- I understand both sides and I do hold the professorate dearly. But I think we need to consider clarity around people who do research or teaching in terms of their jobs -- the invisible labor they put in, in particular. So, what I've seen at other universities that have adopted this is, for teaching professors, in particular, or research professors, the expectation as far as service can be clearly defined. I know we have some of that across departments, but this allows for us to standardize this, allows departments to do this from the bottom up, especially if professors are involved in this. I don't feel like we're handing our power over to some unknown authority. So I'm speaking also as my partner, who is a -- who would be, in terms of these titles, she would be a teaching professor. And I think now, given the department structure she's within, these labels, there's no clear -- there isn't a clear career advancement. It's very haphazard. I think this gives a potential to have some clarity as far as roles. Your role is defined in terms of the key things that we think of as professors, research teaching, and service. And those typically aren't clearly defined, or they vary incredibly widely across title and departments. I think this does bring us forward, so I'd like to echo my last colleague that presented or spoke on this issue. I'm speaking in favor of adopting this resolution. I know that Wisconsin -- I'm new here. I just got here in August. I think you guys think the state has attacked you, in particular. I was in an SEC school. It's the neo-liberal university and at an SEC school and at the ultimate new American university, Arizona State, you guys don't know neo-liberalism, yet. That's all I can say to you. [Laughter] This is not as scary as you think.

[ Applause ]

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: I don't know whose next.

>> I'm assigned District 52, Computer Science. So I'm listening with great intent to the interesting discussion. And it's quite unprecedented, but also, I wonder whether everybody who speaks is a member of the Senate, because people are not member of the Senate cannot speak without permission from the Senate. And I have the concerns that the people who vote are not members of the Senate. And therefore, if they are not members of the Senate, the vote has no value.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: All members of the faculty and academic staff can speak to the Senate. They can't vote. Only members of the Senate can vote.

>> So everybody can come to the Senate and speak to the Senate without seeking a permission from the Senate? But Chad Goldberg, who is a great advocate of following rules of the Senate, whenever he brings people who are outside the Senate ask for the Senate permission for these people to speak.

>> That's because they're students.

>> These are students. Okay. I see. I see. I see the distinction. Thank you.

>> Jeff Linderoth, District 38, Industrial and Systems Engineering. I move to call the question.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Do I -- do I have a second?

>> Requires a two-thirds vote.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Okay. All those in favor of calling the question, please say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: All those opposed to calling the question. I think -- okay. Now, we are now ready to vote on the Faculty Document 2776. All those in favor of approving the creation of a new academic staff title series of Teaching Professor, say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: All those opposed?

>> No. Nay.

>> Division. We ask for recorded vote.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Yep. Yep. All those in favor, raise your hands, please. Thank you. Do you have a total?

>> Yeah. Yep.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Okay. All those opposed, please raise your hand. 95 in favor, 33 opposed. I now ask Professor Amasino to introduce the next motion.

>> Professor Amasino: I move adoption of Faculty Document 2777. This is the document about Research Professor -- using Professor for the Research Professor title. The one thing I would like to note to everyone, because you've seen this before, as with the others, is, based on feedback that the University Committee received, we've made one modification and that's to include the "assistant" prefix in the range of research professor titles so that, like Teaching Professor, it would be assistant, associate, and no prefix to denote full professor. We heard about this before in the last discussion on Teaching Professor in one of the comments, but I wanted to just state again that one of the reasons for the professor title for research was, among many, is to make our researchers more competitive for outside funding. And the University Committee felt that the Assistant Professor title for someone getting started in this track was also very important to enhance the possibilities of getting outside funding.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Once again, no second is needed since the UC is making this motion. Do we need further discussion, since we seem to have discussed all of these all together? But let's focus on the research professor title series.

>> Hello. I'm Jim Shull from District 93, Oncology. And although I am, personally, I'm very supportive of the motion, some of my colleagues have some concerns that I've been asked to share. And we've provided this in writing to the Executive Committee and asked to make a friendly motion here. And this motion comes from discussions among our faculty, but also among faculty of the other basic science departments in the School of Medicine and Public Health, and are spelled out in a letter from the Joint Chairs of the ten basic science departments. Really, we have probably two concerns that came up over and over in our discussions. The first relates to just the way the document is crafted to start defining some of the expectations for these positions. We think with the diversity among all the different departments, this is more problematic than helpful.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> We recognize that there is a lot of work to be done to define what the expectations are for these different titles, but a friendly amendment is offered to some text changes. Is that what you're presenting up here?

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Yep. That's up there.

>> Yes, so I'm focusing on, firstly -- Oh, no, this is not the document that the chairs provided. But the first friendly amendment is that we propose some text changes to the expectations for independent funding. I could read that or we could refer to the document.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: We can scroll.

>> Scroll. It's there. We have to scroll.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: I think it's at the top of the document. No. Whoops. Now we lost it completely. So, can it go up just--

>> Down.

>> Oh, down? It has to go down?

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: It's the last two bullets.

>> The last two -- Okay. Yes, thank you. So, instead of "securing", we just, "pursues --

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Pursues.

>> -- funding through grants, SPI."

>> Mm-hmm.

>> The second friendly amendment really relates to this conversation about well, it will be the department's responsibilities to decide how to use these titles. We would actually prefer that that be inserted in these documents that we're voting on. I see nowhere in there that there is control vested in the executive committees of the departments to decide how to use these titles. I think we would be very much more comfortable voting on this if there was a strong statement as to what the role of the Executive Committee is. That's our second friendly amendment. The third really relates to a discussion about periodic review of performance. And I think that, you know, we can discuss that all day, and I'd prefer not to. But, thank you.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: The parliamentarian tells me we can treat this as a consent item if you are all in favor of these changes that he has -- that the chairs from SMPH have suggested. And if any of you are opposed, then we, of course, take the whole -- we'll go through them word by word to figure out which ones we are approving. So do you -- is anyone opposed to these changes is what I'm asking you. Seems not. Oh.

>> Should we document? Should we document it?

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Oh, shouldn't --

>> Be documented in --

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: And or. [Inaudible]

>> Yes

>> Documented --

>> Yes.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: [Inaudible] Thank you. Okay. Okay. We'll take that. Yeah.

>> Betsy Stovall, District 63, Mathematics. I just have a question. What does it mean to vote for the document with these in place? Are these binding on departments or are they just saying what the Faculty Senate would like?

>> May I?

>> So she -- yes, please.

>> Professor Amasino: There were two things that came up. One was the Executive Committee issue. Just like with the Teaching Professor, these are -- these titles will be used by departments. So departments need to decide if they wish to use these titles. Again, departments aren't bound to use them, but it will be departments that make the decision to use them. And the point about these things below, the things that were just no objections to changing, this is really guidance. It's going to, again, be up to departments to set their own criteria. But these -- what the -- originating with the committee that discussed this in the first place that we've heard from in past Faculty Senate meetings, they made an effort to provide a lot of guidance in the documents that we have as to how colleges and departments will -- the criteria they ought to be using.

>> So, do I misunderstand? If someone is uncomfortable voting for this without this guidance, and this is non-binding, it doesn't affect the outcome of what a vote on this document would mean?

>> Professor Amasino: I'm sorry, I didn't --

>> Yeah, so --

>> Professor Amasino: -- understand the question.

>> I don't -- Does including these comments actually effect what this vote would mean? If this is approved and none of these are binding, it's just guidance to departments that they may not use.

>> This is the guidance. The guidance isn't binding this whole thing because the approval is of the titles in this context. So it is, I mean, it's binding.

>> Yeah.

>> That's the context in which these are approved.

>> Yes.

>> But I can say that. But, go ahead.

>> Professor Amasino: So, after last month, we added in the phrase "in this context" to how they are approved. So it is as binding -- The Senate is approving the use of these titles in the context that's written in here. It is guidance in as much as any job description is guidance. I was taken differently last month when I said that. These will be academic staff titles that will have to be determined specific PVLs written for them -- job descriptions written for them. But this is the guidance that you all are either approving or not approving as the context to approve the use of those titles.

>> And then there's presumably some enforcement of this guidance or this is sent to departments or this has to be included in the --

>> Professor Amasino: Yeah, I think that would have to be a question for OHR, but --

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Any -- oh, it looks like we have someone else coming forward. No. Okay. Any other questions or comments about this resolution about the title series for research professors? If not, all those in favor of the resolution adopting Faculty Document 2777 approving the research professor title series say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: All those opposed.

>> Nay.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Okay. It passed. Do you think we still have quorum for the third title series? Okay, we'll keep going. I invite Professor Amasino to introduce the next resolution.

>> Professor Amasino: The final one in this series --

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Jake says, because I mentioned quorum, we now have to figure out whether we have quorum. Okay. So, all of you out here who are officially voting members of the Senate, please raise your hands. We still have quorum. We're moving forth.

[ Laughter ]

>> Professor Amasino: Okay. I move adoption of Faculty Document 2821, which approves the creation of a new academic staff title of Professor of Practice. This title is a bit different from the other two just discussed. One is, this title has no prefixes, such as assistant or associate. It's simply Professor of Practice. Importantly, while the other two titles are intended for experienced, upper level internal employees, this title is specifically for external, short term field practitioners who are not career academics. For example, a department in Engineering might want to bring in the CEO of an engineering firm to teach a class. That's the type of thing that certain units would like to use this title for. And again, the call for this title came primarily from professional schools that have a need for bringing in real world experts for a limited time to share their experiences and knowledge with students. The Professor of Practice position would still be bound, of course, by minimum qualifications rules on campus and would not be in any way be considered faculty for purposes of governance.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: I don't know who stood up first.

>> Kurt Paulsen, District 22, Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture. And you can tell by the title of our department that we are in strong support of this. We share, with many of our colleagues across the university accredited professional programs, we have an accredited bachelor's degree in science and landscape architecture, a master's in urban regional planning, just like master's in social work, master's in library and information sciences. So the opportunity to bring in a distinguished professional to teach a couple classes, we already do it and our students think that they are much better teachers than the stodgy old faculty because they actually know something about the real world. But to be able to use the title would be very advantageous.

>> Thank you.

>> Jerome Camal, District 45, Anthropology. I voted in favor of the previous two motions, but I have some misgivings about this one. I am concerned that the minimum requirements are not well defined. I'm also -- I voted in favor of the previous two because of the possibility for advancement from assistant to associate to full. And this does not bring these kind of benefits with it and I understand why. I'm just a little concerned for the chances for abuse that departments may be tempted to use this title to reward a wealthy donor who could then pad their resume by having another title added to them. So because we have not yet had a clear sense of how or what kind of oversight there's going to be for these different titles, besides that the govern -- the different departments will be responsible for their own oversight, I do have some misgivings about this particular title.

>> Interesting.

>> Doug Reindl, District 42. My department is Engineering Professional Development and I would put this title to use for sure in our department. We hire people from industry, and the titling series that we currently use is the faculty associate titling series and it's really pretty awful to try to explain that to them. My concern with this as it's proposed is, it would get more use in my department if we had the titling series available assistant -- associate, and no prefix. So I would like to make a motion to amend this to include the titling series in the resolution: assistant, associate, and no prefix.

>> Second.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Do I have a second? Okay. So now, the motion on the floor for discussion is to have the Assistant, Associate, and Professor of Practice title.

>> Professor Amasino: And I think, like any academic staff, if there is somebody that comes in at a very high level, they don't have to start out at the lowest rung in the titling series. They could be given the no prefix title.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Okay. Any further questions, comment, or discussion about that resolution to ex --

>> To the amendment.

>> To the amendment, sorry. The amendment to the original resolution.

>> Regarding the amendment. A question I have is this position or title specifically is meant for short term positions with the idea that they would nearly always be fixed. Would it not be inconsistent for these individuals to have a titling series where there is progression across the positions if the positions are inherently intended to be limited?

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Mm-hmm. Maybe you could answer that.

>> Professor Amasino: In my view, it would, for my department's use, this would not be a very short term. It would be a career move for them. Now, this is, oftentimes, for the people that I hire, they're in their second career or third career. These are people that are coming to this campus that are practicing professionals that want to get into outreach and teaching outreach. And this also aligns with Chancellor Blank's initiative to grow professional programs on this campus. That's what we're trying to do. This would be an enabler to have these people come here and get a meaningful title with the salary cut that they're taking when they come here.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Any other questions or comments about the amendment? Or should we vote on the amendment? All right. All those in favor of the amendment to the resolution, which would expand this title series to Assistant, Associate, and Professor of Practice, say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: All those opposed to the amendment.

>> Nay.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Sounds like the -- what do you think? You don't know? You want to do -- I thought the I's had it, but -- So then we're back to, now we have this amended resolution with the Professor of Practice title series going from assistant, associate, full, that's what's on the floor in front of you. Any other questions or comments?

>> Just a clarification. At the beginning document, we'd have to eliminate the phrase that said there is no assistant --

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: That is indeed true. Mm-hmm. Everyone's all talked-out. Okay. All those in favor of this -- oh! Do you have something to say or are you --

>> Yeah. I just wanted to say. Steph Tai, District 44. I just -- I guess, what I don't understand is how having this series title would work because the "whereas" right before is specifically about short term instructional personnel.

>> Yeah.

>> And so it seems internally inconsistent to have these two paragraphs together.

>> Yes.

>> Betsy Stovall, District 63, Mathematics. I think that our colleagues, before asking this -- before voting on this should ask themselves the impact on the institution of tenure if we have a title series that mimics the title series of tenured faculty that is explicitly short term. And I think that, in addition to that inconsistency, there is the concern about broader impacts and unintended consequences in this.

>> Okay. One question. Will you -- Steve, can you change the wording to be consistent?

>> I mean, somebody would have to make a motion.

>> Someone would have to make --

>> I mean, the only thing I could say is that there is usually a short term and terminal.

>> Yes.

>> Right? [Inaudible]

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Yeah, so, do we want to vote on it as is with some inconsistency or is someone going to make a motion to resolve the -- amendment to resolve the inconsistency in the wording?

>> Let me try to do this on the fly. Steven, if you could go up. The second paragraph in the background. I think there's two changes that would clean this up. The first two sentences in the second paragraph. The sentence beginning with "This title..." Strike those two sentences, all the way to the third line where it begins "Professional schools and departments..." That would get struck. And then, back in the last "whereas" that we were just looking at. I would just eliminate short term instructional. So I would make a motion to amend with those editorial revisions.

>> Just short term.

>> Sorry. Short term. Keep instructional. Sorry.

>> Keep instructional.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Does anyone second the motion to change the resolution in such a way? Okay, now these changes are on the floor. Proposed changes are on the floor for discussion.

>> Hi Jonathan Senchyne, Information School, District 62. I come here as the Senator from a professional school and I do have concerns, and I can represent the concerns of our faculty, about not changing these away from being short term positions. In fact, I think my distinguished colleague may be in error for thinking that this category should be used for ongoing appointments, even for people who are coming from industry. I think that we may be dealing with a difference in how we ought to be hiring before this, especially since we've just created two other categories under which that hiring can happen. And so I would vote against that particular amendment. And I came up here to speak about another possibility, about whether or not the term -- if we want to keep this series in here, which implies some kind of progression or rank -- whether the introduction of the term "visiting" would make sense here to specifically indicate that this is a limited term, special appointment.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: The visiting term we already have. But right now, let's just focus on these proposed changes because we need to vote on whether you want these changes or not.

>> Don Stone, Material Science and Engineering. So, I voted against the first vote -- motion -- that we had a while ago because that was not a well-defined description of what the job position would be in. And I felt, as others did, that it was ripe for abuse.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> I would have voted for this, had we kept it as limited term. But now we're trying to turn it into the first one and so people might vote for that again, not being any distinction between that and this. Right? I would -- I would recommend against the motion. I understand. I think it is in -- you have the best of intentions, but I would keep it as it is, as described as a limited term appointment and so that if somebody, if you want to have a person come in and teach a course over multiple semesters, that you can appoint them in multiple semesters and not have it become a permanent position. So --

>> Okay.

>> Steph Tai, District 44. I would also urge against having a long term position such as this. Part of the reason why, and this is -- I speak from this, coming from the law school perspective. This is a title, Professor of Practice, that is used at many law schools, but it's always, in my knowledge, used for short term positions because the understanding is that they bring their professional experiences. And if they stay in academia too long, they no longer have these professional experiences to share. So I would advocate against this motion as, or this motion as currently drafted because I think, actually, with a long term position, you lose some of the practice based nature of such a position.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Okay, I think we should take it, if there are no other comments, a vote on these proposed wording changes. The amend. So, all those in favor of these proposed wording changes, say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: All those opposed.

>> Nay.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Okay. All right. But we still then had -- you had approved the use of the title series as opposed to just Professor of Practice. Whoop. Yes?

>> Betsy Stovall, District 63, Mathematics. I'd like to postpone discussion of this until the next Faculty Senate meeting. I think that the title series actually makes a large difference in the document and perhaps senators would be best to go back and talk to their colleagues about whether they would agree with the title series in this context.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Okay. Does anyone second that?

>> I.

>> Okay. All those -- oh.

>> Sorry. There is discussion. But it's only valid discussion at this point.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Okay, so, Jake is telling me we can actually discuss this decision. Before we vote, we have to open the floor up for discussion again. But it's only about whether to postpone. So, does anyone have any more? All right. If not, we will vote. All those in favor of postponing, say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: All those opposed?

>> Nay.

>> Provost Mangelsdorf: Okay. So we're postponing the vote on Professor of Practice. You know what? I'm sorry, I -- I guess we're adjourned. We had some other voting items, but they'll have to be postponed.