>> I believe we have a quorum present, so I'm going to call the meeting to order and ask everyone to rise as you are able, for the reading of memorial resolutions. [ Ambient Noise ] Let me recognize Professor Amy Bellmore to present the memorial resolution for Professor Emeritus, Frank Baker, Amy. >> Dr. Frank Baker, scholar, statistician, distinguished combat veteran, and avid skier and flyer, died on November 9, 2018, just days before his 91st birthday. Born and raised in Minnesota, Dr. Baker earned undergraduate and PhD degrees from the University of Minnesota, before joining the university's Department of Educational Psychology in 1951. He retired 37 years later, after a distinguished record of research, community, and scholarly service. Dr. Baker authored over 100 peer reviewed journal articles and three books on various aspects of educational measurement, especially item response theory. He is survived by his wife of 68 years, two children, and two grandchildren. >> Thank you, and I want to recognize that Professor Baker's daughter, Anne Marie Baker, is here. Thank you for coming. [ Applause ] Let me recognize Professor Stephen [inaudible] to present the memorial resolution for Professor Emeritus, Fred Madison. >> Professor Fred Madison was passionate about protecting natural resources through education, research, and advocacy, throughout his career. After receiving UW Madison degrees in geology and soil science, Fred was appointed by the first Peace Corp director, Sergeant Shriver, as a Director of Recruiting. He then served as legislative assistant to Senator Gaylord Nelson, where he helped create the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In 1978 he was appointed as an assistant professor in soil science, and as an extension state specialist, with the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Highlights of his university research and outreach career include; evaluation of seepage from earth and live animal waste storage pits, establishment of routine county drinking water inventories, and co-founder of University of Wisconsin Extension Discovery Farms. Fred was one of a kind. He passed June 3, 2019. >> Thank you Steve, and let me recognize that Professor Madison's wife, Tracy, is in the back of the room, thank you for coming. [ Applause ] That concludes the memorial resolutions, please be seated. [ Ambient Noise ] Welcome to the middle of the semester, it's always that time when you can't quite believe it's already the first week of November. I've got a number of things that I'm going to run through relatively quickly so we can get to business. I'm actually going to go backwards here, I often start with good news, but I'm going to start with some more difficult news and move to the good news at the end. And let me start with our policies on hostile and intimidating behavior. I know many of you have seen the recent state journal articles about the student death in the College of Engineering. It is a tragic story and it's a concerning one. I want to state clearly, at UW Madison, we are committed to maintaining a supportive climate of collegiality in which all members of our community treat each other with respect. Indeed, effective education cannot occur outside such a climate. Hostile or intimidating behavior should not be tolerated. This body and the other governance bodies passed a hostile and intimidating behavior policy, I think that was finally passed through everything in 2016, and in 2017 we were just in the process of setting this up. We've worked to establish campus wide policies and training around hostile and intimidating behavior in the workplace and that's rooted in our commitment and fundamental obligation to provide safe and supportive learning and working environments for our students, staff, and faculty. The case that has been highlighted in the state journal is exactly the type of case that our hostile and intimidating behavior policy is meant to address. And I want to call on every member of the campus community to be a partner in identifying, addressing, and confronting incidences of hostile and intimidating behavior. For too long, as many of us know, these sorts of interactions have existed in the shadows, they've been discounted as this is just the way someone is, and those dynamics are even further exasperated when you're in a situation of a power imbalance, an advisor or student, a supervisor or an employee. But for this policy to work, it needs buy-in from students, faculty and staff, to take a page out of TSA's book, if you see something, you need to say something. If a student or colleague comes to you with a concern, please listen and please act. We know sometimes these incidences are difficult to report, but in order to create an environment where students, staff, and faculty are welcome, they have to feel empowered to report when these sorts of things occur. As a result of what has happened here in this engineering program, we're taking the following actions; we are increasing our communication efforts to ensure that all campus community members are informed of the campus policies around HIB, this is a relatively new policy and my guess is there are some people who don't know that it is out there, and they don't know what they should be doing. So we want to make sure that people know where and how to report such behavior, so it can be addressed in a timely fashion. And we've begun important conversations, particularly with graduate students, who are sometimes most at risk, to help us identify services that may be needed as well. We are also looking to ensure the reports of hostile and intimidating behavior, particularly patterns of behavior, where you see more than one report, do not simply remain hidden inside a department or inside a unit, but that they receive oversight review and guidance from central campus administration. So essentially we're going to ask that these incidents be reported up in exactly the same way that we require reports of sexual harassment and misconduct to be reported up, so that if there are situations of multiple reports, we will know that and we can go work with a department and with a dean, in order to address what might be going on. That helps us to better track and report up the conduct, but most importantly, it helps you more systematically address concerns and make sure that people know where to turn for help. All of this builds on guidelines that clarify the options for reporting hostile and intimidating behavior. So let me end where I started, hostile and intimidating behavior on this campus is simply unacceptable. We all deserve to work and study in an environment that treats us with respect and allows us to reach our highest potential. Each and every one of us on this campus has the responsibility to create that climate. Second topic; about 10 days ago, UW System, Ray Cross, announced his plans to retire, he will stay on in his current job as president of the system until a successor is hired. His replacement is very important to this campus. Ray had a strong understanding of education, he also understood that this campus was different than some of the others and was very good at often resisting one size fits all system based policies. You may have heard, I'm a member of the search committee that's going to represent our campus, we actually have two representatives because Student Regent, Torrey Tiedeman, who's an undergraduate on the campus, is also on the committee. Stay tuned for updates as that process continues. Many of you, third issue, many of you may have followed the issue of the Homecoming video and the student group that has emerged from it, the Student Inclusion Coalition. That group held a protest a few weeks ago and has issued a set of demands, which I know that many of you have probably read. Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Lori Reesor, and Deputy Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion, Patrick Sims, have started a series of discussions with these students, to learn about what's important to them and what are the concerns that underlie some of these demands. While we may not be able to meet the demands specifically as they are stated, we are in a conversation and want to make sure that we are responsive to the underlying concerns that might be there. And that is the right conversation to be having. Seguing into good things that are happening on campus; we had an opening ceremony for the beautiful Hamel Music Performance Center, that will be used by the Mead Witter School of Music, that happened just a week or two ago. If you haven't had a chance to stop by this building on campus, right next to the Chazen, go explore it, go to a concert, it is a beautiful music space and long overdue that we have a first class music performance space for our students here on campus. Many of the finishes in the building, particularly the lovely parts of the building, were all made in Wisconsin, the architects visited businesses all around the state to figure out how we could work with them and how we could incorporate some of the things that they were doing locally, into this building. So in that sense, the facility really stands for the idea that an investment in UW is an investment in Wisconsin, and that coming to Wisconsin is also part about serving the larger community. And I love the symbolism of that. The new facility is particularly important at a time when music and other arts are sometimes viewed as less than a priority by some people. And the fact is, as we all know, arts are absolutely critical to the education that we provide here on campus and I'm delighted that at least the musical arts will have this type of space available. Finally, we recently got some very good news about key measures of student success and this was all released Friday and you might have read about this recently as well. Our time to degree continues to fall, it's fallen by almost a half year in the last 6 years. We have a new record, undergraduates are taking less than 4 years, four calendar years, to complete their degree. It's 3.96 is the average time to degree, the lowest since the university began tracking that measure. And let me, time to degree is a calendar year. So 4 years means you graduated by the end of August if you start in September, right, so 4.96 doesn't mean people are graduating in less than 4 years of the spring, it means that they're graduating to spring, maybe taking one class in the summer, but to my mind, the difference between graduating in May and graduating in June, I pretty much nonexistent in terms of getting on with your life, getting out into jobs. So I'm delighted to see that number under 4 years, and I should note there are some places and some students where, taking longer than 4 years makes sense. For instance in the engineering program where students often do a yearlong coop, an internship, and then just get absolutely great jobs because of that experience. And you know, [inaudible] there are some students who should take longer but the sooner students graduate, that brings down student debt. Staying longer is highly correlated with higher levels of debt, and our debt numbers continue to drop; 54% of our students graduate with zero debt as of these numbers last year. Our 4 year graduation rate now, you know, in contrast to used to a graduation rate is the percentage of students who graduate in May, right? On, you know in the normal time. Our 4 year graduation rate, for students who enter as new freshmen, rose to 69.3%, which is again a significant increase over past years. The 6 year graduation rate is 87.6%. That puts us in the top 10 public universities in the country. And that 4 year graduation rate, unless a few other people jump enormously, is going to this next year put us in the top 10 for 4 year graduation rates among public universities as well. The freshmen to sophomore retention rate is 95.2%, the 7th consecutive year that number has been above 95%. None of this happened by chance. Yes, we have great students and great faculty, but we've been working to put the institutional constraints and incentives around our programs to make sure that students can graduate on time. So for instance, we have enhanced our student advising, including a really concerted effort to provide advisors with more professional, advisors with more professional development opportunities so they can do their work better. The expansion of summer term is important to this, so students can pick up one or two missing classes, not have to stay for a whole additional semester. There are new online tools that help undergraduates find and enroll in the crosses they need. There are expanded career services such as success works or a hand shake, that keep students focused on their post-graduation goals and encourage them to think about jobs. What they're going to do next. And move forward with their life. And of course, we do have great students and great faculty, and great staff, and that helps as well. I want to particularly thank Steve Cramer, Jocelyn Milner, and Wren Singer, our chief advisor, and many of the deans and department chairs who've worked on aspects of this. We continue to have a whole agenda of things that we are working on to continue to improve our educational statistics, so we're not stopping, we're going to keep working on this. But I'm pleased with where we are. Finally, just a comment on Bucky's Tuition Promise, we've just announced that there're just about 850, 848 new students this fall receiving Bucky's Tuition Promise, which is in its second year. That's up by more than 50 students from last year. Nine hundred students are receiving either Bucky's Tuition Promise or Badger Promise, which is an assistance for first generation students transferring from one of the 2 year schools in Wisconsin. That means that 1 in 5 of the new undergraduates coming to UW Madison, from Wisconsin, are basically receiving free tuition are in one of those two programs. And that is what we need to be doing to make sure that low income students in this state who are admitted into UW Madison can, indeed, attend. Just to put a point on how widespread the use of this program is, students come from 65 of Wisconsin's 72 countries, and more than half of them are first generation college students. So I'm very pleased with those numbers and we need to keep pushing on that front as well. I remind everyone that the diversity summit is tomorrow, I hope some of you are planning to attend, I understand we have well over 1000 attendees who have scheduled, people come and go, [inaudible] really that many people in the room at one time, but that's an all-time record in terms of number of attendance and I think that both reflects the quality of the program at Patrick Sims puts together, as well as the real concern about these issues on campus and making sure we continue to move forward. So, do stop by the diversity summit if you can. And with that, let me call on Terry Warfield to say a few things and then we'll both take questions. Terry. [ Ambient Noise ] >> Good afternoon, thank you Chancellor Blank. The University Committee, following on my short presentation at last month's meeting, were staying busy with our weekly meetings on Monday afternoon, and actually I think I shared that we actually meet through the summer. One of the things we did through the summer, this past summer, was reflected a little bit as University Committee with respect to how to kind of honor and kind of reinforce the messaging around the Our Shared Future plaque that was installed last year. It's a little bit faded here but we actually consulted a bit over the summer with the Our Shared Future group that kind of put that together and we felt like, instead of kind of having a kind of a reading, my colleague, Erica Halverson, read the entire plaque at our meeting last time. We thought we would take a little bit of time at the beginning of each senate meeting and kind of reflect on the overall statement but then take a minute to reflect on one sentence within the plaque statement. And so we're going to start that off this meeting, and so up here we have the first sentence that we'll kind of reflect on today and then we'll go to the second sentence in our next senate meeting. [ Ambient Noise ] So the first sentence reads, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, occupies ancestral Ho-Chunk land, a place their nation has called Teejop (day-JOPE) since time immemorial. [ Ambient Noise ] Thank you. And we'll take up the second sentence next month, so you can do a little homework. >> Are there questions for Terry or for myself? >> Marquette [inaudible] District 11, so I had a question about the Bucky's Tuition Promise, which I think is one of your greatest achievements as chancellor. >> A lot of people have worked on that one. >> Okay, and you said the words "free tuition" and you know, that's talked a lot about, but somehow you've done this magic trick. In my mind and come up with free tuition and there's no state tax money involved in this at all, is what you said, there's not, there's no state tax dollars. And that anybody whose family has an income below the state's median, automatically gets this. You just send out letters. In fact, some of the students get these letters saying that they're going to get free tuition and they think, is this a joke or real? So, I think that's pretty amazing that you've accomplished this in a fairly short time and you have quite a few students in the program. And my question is, how have you done this? And when you're gone, say you know, 100 years from now when you step down as chancellor-- >> --long time from now. >> --will this still go on, you know? Is it sustainable? >> Yeah. So, let me be clear what Bucky's Tuition Promise does, it promises 4 years for those who are coming as freshmen, of tuition fees paid. It is last [inaudible] coverage so if someone has a Pell Grant, it means we cover everything else up to tuition and fees. There is some state dollars for low income students that are paid out. The State of Wisconsin actually gives less state aid to students than many other states. But there are some small amounts of state dollars that low income students can claim. So in that sense they would get that and we would then cover everything else. So there's two main ways in which we funded this to be able to announce this and make it possible. One is that with the alumni campaign that we've been going, we've been in the midst of, we have vastly expanded our scholarships. And that scholarship aide, not all of it is aimed at low income students, some of it is aimed at students with particular interests, some of it is aimed at merit rather than need alone, but that it has expanded our low income dollars. Secondly, as many of you know, we have somewhat increased the size of our freshmen class and we've done that on the basis of a very, very large and rapidly increasing applications from out of state. We've doubled our out of state applications in just the last 8-10 years. And of course, they pay a higher tuition rate and one of the advantages of that is it lets us do more cross subsidies of low income Wisconsin residents. It's one of those win win things that I think it's good for us to have some of those students and it's good for us to be able to use that revenue in ways that strengthen our programs here in Wisconsin. So, I would be very surprised that, in something less than 100 years, when I leave, that this is not a program that is going to be very well embedded and that we will continue to be able to fund. I mean ideally, to be honest, I would love to fund, maybe not full tuition fees, but some money that goes even a little bit higher to more middle, you know, some of the more middle income families who often struggle as well. But, you know, that is going to be tough without some additional state funding and other assistance at times. So. [ Ambient Noise ] Anything else? If not, we will turn to the minutes, they are on your agenda, page 6. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes of the 7th of October? If there are none, I'm going to approve them as distributed. Let me then recognize Professor Marah Curtis, who's going to present the annual report to the Committee on Women at the University, that's on pages 7-19 in your document. Marah. [ Ambient Noise ] >> Hello, hello. So I guess the first thing I would say, just for you to know, that there's a lot of statistical appendices that you can get via the hotlink in the report that you all got or you could go directly to the Office of the Secretary, the faculty website on the senate page if you want all of the different data that we get yearly about the status of the university. So I guess I would just say a couple minutes, a couple of the things that we're focusing on this year that we cover in the report. I'm here with my co-chair, Kate Moran, she's not on the agenda but she is here. The Committee on Women in the University's working on a plan to field a brief survey. We haven't done a survey kind of taking the temperature about what the campus thinks we should be focusing on in terms of our charge and so we're quite excited about it. We've got the instrument done, that was quite a task to get done. And so, what we hope to do this year is to field it but I'm particularly excited about, and I think Kate is as well, that we're going to reach members of every employment category; individuals working first, second, and third shifts, so we're working with different partner groups to have the survey translated and working on ways in which we can field it, so we're excited about that. It's only about an 8 minute survey so the results of that I think will be quite interesting to find out if there're differential concerns across shift workers. The other thing that we've been working on is the Campus Climate Survey. And one of the goals there, to advance the recommendations, and so we're working with various different bodies on campus to think about how we can do that. And also, you know, the chancellor started out with talking about hostile and intimidating behavior, we had occasion to have some visits last year, presenting some early round data about this new system and about the complaints, and it's not obvious what the data means and what it's telling us. So part of our task we're hoping to this year, is to talk about two things; the data that we have around where these infractions are coming from is one part, but the other part is to think about what kind of norm shifts or changes do we need in terms of our bystander culture such that we switch the norms so that individuals that are reporting, are not disproportionately burdened by having to do that role. Those are the three things that we're focusing on mostly this semester. People on the county are working quite hard and stepping up to do all sorts of different things. So please, I invite your questions. [ Ambient Noise - Inaudible ] >> I'm then going to recognize you-- >> Okay. >> To present a proposed change to FP and P on selection on co-chairs to the Committee on Women at the University. This is on page 20 in your document if you want to move that. >> Yes, I move to adoption of faculty document 2848, proposal to change faculty policies and procedures on the selection of co-chair to the Committee on Women in the University. >> Is there a second to that proposal? >> Second. >> Alright, would you like to speak to this? >> Well, just to say that it's really awesome to be able to have any voting member be able to chair. We've had, so Kate and I are working together and there is this cross perspective depending on how you function in the university and I've learned quite a bit I wouldn't otherwise know and I think it really strengthens our work so I'm quite happy to do that. >> Discussion on the proposal. Anyone have anything they want to say? [ Ambient Noise ] In that case, if you are ready to vote, all those in favor of the adoption of Faculty Document 2848, will indicate by saying aye. >> [multiple] Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much for your work and thanks to your whole committee for all that you've done. Let me now recognize Professor Chris Barcelos, who will present the annual report for the Committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer People in the University. Thank you. [ Ambient Noise ] >> Hi, good afternoon. I'll just go over the combined past 2 years report really briefly and then summarize what we're up to in the coming year and then take any questions. My staff co-chairs, Jay Botsford, who works in the Learning Communities, works with the learning, there's a lot of words here, Community Specialist in the Department of Learning Communities for Institutional Change and Excellence, but was not able to be here today. So as you can see in the report, and there was a small change in the gender data section so if you downloaded it prior to Friday, you might notice a small difference. So the, I believe the corrected minor changes updated document is now live. So in the past 2 years a lot of what the committee has been working on is equitable and inclusive healthcare for staff and faculty at the university. So there was a number of changes to our insurance benefits; first to exclude transgender specific healthcare and then to include transgender specific healthcare, which was a great victory that the committee worked on that happened a little over a year ago. The other main thing we've been working on in the last 2 years is a gender inclusive bathroom policy for the campus. And so there was 2 years of task force, planning force, on that and that just concluded over the summer and you probably saw in your Working at UW email in September, the full report on that and the guidelines for campus. So I would refer you to that if you have specific questions, I wasn't quite as involved with that. We've been hosting annual kind of town hall events to survey the wide variety of our community on campus and see what kind of issues they are seeing in their divisions and departments and workplaces, we'll continue to do that. Some of the things that came up in this past years thing was the loss of domestic partner benefits and the possibilities for exploring bringing those back. And also to kind of follow-up with the theme, people experiencing hostile and intimidating behaviors in their workplaces and that having a centralized place to, or point person to deal with that. So there's been some discussion of if there was a position for that, what would it look like, what would it be, how would it be funded, et cetera. In the coming year we're going to focus on a number of the things that were identified in the last spring's town hall, so one of those was greater community engagement, so we worked with the Gender and Sexuality Campus Center, the GSCC, to do a little bit of programming but trying to organize semi-regular get togethers for members of the community to find each other on this huge and often isolating campus. We're going to continue to look into things around hostile and intimidating workplace behaviors as well as, I'm sorry, performance management or discipline and how that might be implemented disparately according to kind of unwritten rules or biases. We'll be following the implementation and rollout of the gender inclusive restroom policy. Continuing to look into reinstating domestic partnership benefits, and then a couple of things related to how data on gender is collected, both in graduate school admissions and for employees. So that was the change that was made in the gender section of the report, if you want to refer to that. Could I take any questions? [ Inaudible ] Thank you. >> Thank you very much, [inaudible], thank your committee for all their work. Let me recognize Professor Craig Rubin, who will present the annual report for the University Curriculum Committee. [ Ambient Noise ] >> Thank you, on behalf of the University Curriculum Committee, I'd like you to refer you to the document that you have, summarizing our activities for last year. We did just over 400 course proposals and reviewed various policies of which you can see listed there; things like sustainability attribute, course learning outcomes, what needs to be on syllabus for course review, and things like that. For this coming year, we have a number of topics that we'll be addressing as well. One of the main ones will be cross listing and coming up with a policy to more clearly guide new courses and exciting courses in that regard. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to field them at this point. [ Ambient Noise ] >> Any questions? Thank you very much, I know this is a committee that does a lot of work, all important work, thank you. Let me recognize Professor Tim Smeeding, who's going to present the annual report for the University Lectures Committee. Tim. [ Ambient Noise ] >> Thanks, boss. Okay, nothing new. Still passing out money. The applications are about the same, the awards are up to $1100 bucks now per lecture. And we're asking people, if they can, to co-sponsor. We need at least some financial co-sponsor for everybody, graduate students less, or you can explain why you can't help with a co-sponsor. A letter that says, I co-sponsor this and doesn't put any money in isn't very useful. And there's one other thing I sent you a note all about this probably earlier this week, and it's something called, the [inaudible] Fund. The [inaudible] Fund has massive amounts of money in it. It was set up for lectures on the free enterprise system, okay? Now, in case you think that you don't qualify, here is some of the people we sponsored last year. Hold on, I got to find them. My notes are all confused. We sponsored Free Enterprise for Social Impact for [inaudible] last year. Somebody came in and talked about how free enterprise system could be used to, you know, [inaudible] fund things [inaudible]. We had another one, Managing Transitions from College to Work: The Value of Signals, Capital, and Career, for the Centers for College and Workforce Transition. This isn't like you need a raving rightwing capitalist to come in and whatever, suppose you want to point out as our former dean and now provost sitting here, quite often, that people with liberal arts degrees can actually get good jobs. Bring somebody in to say that. You can sponsor a reception. It's not limited to the usual stuff. Go online, please help me, it's my last year at trying to spend this money. We'll [inaudible] schools become good at spending the money, of course I exempt myself from all that as would the chancellor, but the rest of you can. So please do. Anybody got any questions? [ Ambient Noise ] It's been vivid once again, thank you. [ Ambient Noise ] >> Thank you, Tim. And thanks to your committee as well. Tim, I think this might be yours sitting up here. Is it? Seems to have your name on it. I could read it aloud. >> [inaudible] >> And we saved the best committee report for last. The University Academic Planning Council, Provost Carl Scholz will present that annual report. [ Ambient Noise ] >> --everyone. You have in your agenda packets, the annual report for the University Academic Planning Committee. Do you have any questions about it? Thank you very much. It's a fun committee, we did good work stewarding the academic-- >> And thanks to that committee as well. Alright, let me recognize Professor Terry Warfield, who's going to present a proposal, this is the second reading, to change faculty policies and proceedings intended to strengthen support for jointly appointed faculty. And since it is a second reading, we will hopefully have a discussion and move towards a vote. Terry. [ Ambient Noise ] >> Thank you, Chancellor Blank. I move approval of Senate Document 2823, to clarify language around faculty with appointments in more than one department. I think this is where you say, there's no need for a second. >> There is no need for a second, so Terry, would you like to address this? >> I do have a few preliminary comments and this follows a bit of the preamble to the amendments that we took a look at at the last meeting. So you have in your materials, Faculty Document 2823, and this is a series of proposed faculty policies and procedures changes intended to clarify and strengthen support for faculty with appointments in more than one department. Now as we discussed in the first reading, last month, there have been a couple of cases in the recent, in the last few years, where faculty have been caught between departments with different expectations or requirements. For example, two departments voting on tenure or two different processes for promotion to full professor. And the procedures have not been clear to help faculty navigate these situations. The materials in front of you are the first step in a multi-part effort to address the specific needs of jointly appointed and interdisciplinary faculty. Now if approved, the Office of Human Resources, the Provost's Office, and the Office [inaudible] Secretary of Faculty, will be working on template appointment letters which the UC will work with those offices to develop guidance for schools and colleges on appointments, mentoring and promotion, and an ad hoc committee will be put together to work throughout this year, hopefully get done by at the end of the year, to determine whether the other aspects of faculty policies and procedures that should be changed. Let me draw your attention to two major emphases of note in the proposed changes, and they are greater emphasis on appointment letters, so we want to make sure appointment letters clearly establish these joint responsibilities between departments, and clear indication of the need for a lead department. So with that-- >> Is there discussion of the proposal? [ Inaudible ] >> You're going to have to come up to the mic, we have to have everything on the mic. [ Ambient Noise ] And you'll have to identify yourself before you speak. >> Yes, I'm Mike Bell from the Department of Community and Environmental Sociology and I'm wondering, I just looked over the procedures that are in the thing there and it doesn't mention post-tenure review, particularly in an across college situation. You mentioned promotion, you, but not, and tenure, but not the post-tenure review procedures, which also need to be harmonized in some way. We actually have a situation like that in my department right now. >> Sure, and I think you'll find in looking at the totality of faculty policies and procedures, one of the examples I gave was promotion to full, which that could encompass that as well, and post-tenure review would between part of that as well. >> I see, not just promotion to full, but also the post-tenure-- >> Or other things that happen after you receive tenure, yes. >> Thank you, I didn't see it explicitly mentioned in the document, so that's why I was-- make sure that we're also thinking about how to harmonize those. >> Well, we'll make note of that and this is part of the follow-on work, to make sure that those particular things don't fall through the cracks [inaudible] >> It's probably just a clause that's needed. >> Yeah, next question. >> Ron Gangnon, District 99, Population Health Sciences. So as a jointly appointed faculty member, I am actually very supportive of the substance of this resolution and I'm frankly, horrified if any jointly appointed faculty member didn't receive this sort of guidance starting out. My only concern is, the document introduces the term tenure home [inaudible] and implies that there is a singular tenure home. And I view myself as having two tenure homes; biostatistics and population health sciences, and I don't know why that term is needed. I did some research on similar sort of documentation at University of Michigan, and they use the term administrative home, which seems much preferable, and captures the notion that the [inaudible] department has to take the lead at administering this, but both departments, I am a full member of both departments and so that's my question. >> Thank you for raising that, and we had a, maybe your email exchange is one of the exchanges we, we had a couple of comments come in in that regard, and the tenure home, the introduction of that term is not implied to mean that you cannot have arrangements with multiple departments. The key, and this is part of the thing that had to be played out, is we write the actual policies and then also develop the other areas in FP and P where this might come up, is that that original appointment letter, needs to make clear, when there are, you know, there are associations with multiple departments with respect to how tenure is evaluated. Right now, this document's designed to be a first step to begin filling the gap, because right now FP and P is silent with respect to a lot of these issues. So, we've made note of this particular issue and again, we'll make sure that as we move forward implementing this, that those issues will be addressed. Whether we end up with tenure home a being an official word or we have some other word, we're referring to things like that now and the tenure home seemed to be like the right word to use right now. >> It doesn't exist now, and now we're-- >> Understood. >> --putting it in FP and P as a concept. The existing concept is principle sponsor, it's been in FP and P since I joined the faculty. I don't like [inaudible] >> I understand. >> [inaudible] to using, it is, it has no meaning other than a synonym for principle sponsor. It's unclear to me why, why would administrative home be any--? Well, we're equally well serve the purpose of the existing FP and P -- >> Understood, and again, we did go back and look at the various instances and we kind of came down to tenure home works, and if appointment letters, if departments and units follow the guidelines with respect to initial appointment letters, that it will, it will be a label that works fine. And we will meet the goal that we're trying to accomplish in these amendments. [ Ambient Noise ] >> I would like to propose an amendment to replace the word tenure home throughout the proposal with administrative home. >> Is there a second to that amendment? >> Second [inaudible]. >> Alright, we are now going to have discussion only on that amendment. The proposal to replace the word tenure home all through this, wherever it occurs in the document, with the term administrative home. Can I hear discussion on that amendment? >> Good afternoon, Chris Walker, I believe it's 33, Dance Department. I want to speak in support of this amendment. I'm speaking on behalf of the dance department here and we are, we've been around since 1926, and a part of a conversation we're constantly asking ourselves is, not just only how we remain relevant, but how we continue to serve this population. And we are looking at a reality of a multi-hyphenate world in terms of the artists and scholars that we engage with, in terms of the role of the body in space in academia, creativity in other areas of interest. And so, all faculty of the future are multi-hyphenate and will have to work in departments and cross departments, and this is a conversation that is existing in the field so I want to speak in support of the idea of an administrative home, where your tenure may be tied to the different parts of the hyphen, where your research lives. >> Other discussion? >> Damon Sajnani, I'm [inaudible] for African Cultural Studies and African American Studies. I'd like to speak in support of the proposed change. I know well this, these issues of being, the pros and cons about being in both, in more than one department and I think that the importance of this work that's being done is serious but I definitely think that the concern that was raised here, is an important one and although the question was acknowledged several times, I didn't hear an answer as to why the language that exists right now, is preferable. Or the proposed language of, you know, tenure home, as opposed to administrative home, and could you repeat, what was the other term? >> Administrative [inaudible] >> There was administrative home, you also mentioned another existing-- principle sponsor, yeah. So, we didn't hear from you, the rationale, we heard you say yes, you looked at all the different languages, but we didn't hear an explanation as to why tenure home seemed to be the preference. So, I'm interested to know that. But based on the points that have been raised so far, I strongly am in support of the motion on the floor. Thank you. >> So, just to be clear, I don't think administrative home exists in the FP and P now. In other words, and I think administrative home could be, or administrative unit or whatever, I mean, it's a matter of semantics. Tenure home was chosen with, in the context of the development of these amendments, with kind of thinking about that what we might call this, because right now, the FP and P is silent. And in actuality, the way it works, there are administrative homes, sponsoring units is a little challenging because tenure home and how you, [inaudible] sponsoring is related to how you're paid, or how you're appointment is funded, and that's not necessarily the same thing. So I think administrative home could work fine, as opposed to tenure home, and I think it's important though, that whatever we call it, we need to make sure that the provisions with respect to appointment letters are capturing these things up front so that faculty know where they stand with respect to these joint appointments. >> Any other comments on the amendment? >> Karl Broman, from Biostatistics and Medical Informatics. I'm supportive of the change, but I wonder whether we need to add administrative home as another term. If you read the proposed FPP it says, one department should be called the, shall be, you know, denoted the principle sponsor. Why not just stock with that throughout the rest? And talk about the principle, the department that's the principle sponsor or the principally sponsoring department, or what have you? >> That was my original plan, Karl. But-- >> Sorry, Ron Gangnon, District 99. There was one sentence about essentially the principle sponsor will be the tenure home regardless of level of support or continuing commitment. That really was awkward to reword with principle because it would like, the principle sponsor will still be the principle sponsor if-- so, it was, that was really why I, it was easier to do the rewording and administrative home, I found [inaudible] language, so I had originally went with principle sponsor, but I think this works just as well. [ Inaudible ] >> So, I hear from the people [inaudible] that they're happy with moving to administrative sponsor as opposed to, or administrative home as opposed to tenure home. So that they have ceded the point. Is there other discussion on this amendment? Otherwise we will vote on it. [ Ambient Noise ] >> Hi there, Ashley Brown, Department of History and Department of African American Studies. I guess I'm still looking for clarification or something. Are we saying one tenure home first of all, and are we defining tenure home as different from administrative home? I point this out because I have two tenure homes, but I would say that one department overwhelmingly does all of the things that need to happen in terms of supporting my work administratively. [ Ambient Noise ] >> We're not, what's being proposed here is not to accommodate these current provisions, but it's to make sure that when the tenure homes are being, the tenure home that's being jointly administered, that there are clear, there's clear understanding from the get-go, with respect to what that means in terms of mentoring and so on and so forth. So this language does not negate any existing appointment arrangements. >> I think what's-- there will continue to be people who hold tenure in multiple places. The, what has been proposed as administrative home, is simply the unit that will do the paperwork, that will initiate a process when it's time to go through a review, you know, and will bring people together as described here, to make it happen. Which is I, a proposal for I guess why administrative home rather than tenure home was made. Is there any other discussion? If not, we will vote, oh, okay. [ Ambient Noise ] >> Donald Stone, Material Science and Engineering. So, I think that some of this has been answered, but is there a clear definition of what a tenure home is? I've been here for 30 years and I have an idea of what it is. But if have tenure homes in two different departments, what does that mean? For the university FP and P? >> Well I think it means that with respect to progressing to earn tenure, right, there are going to be procedures that you will follow through, like which executive committee, the executive committees, which divisional committee, and criteria by which those are going to be defined. So, in a way, because, and that's got to happen no matter what, when people are being, are working in two different areas, multi-disciplinary areas. So what we have to make sure, is that the processes by which that's going to happen, right, are clearly articulated from the beginning. And that's where we've run into problems where it's not. So that's why actually, I am kind of sympathetic to the administrative home, because tenure may look very different when two different departments are involved and a person's doing different things across different departments. >> Okay, and so I would also have the same question about what the administrative home is? Do you have a definition for what that is? And apparently not. >> I think the administrative home is simply among the departments that hold someone's tenure, the one that moves first whenever promotion or review issues come up. And that does all the paperwork after they are completed. >> Okay, well I would argue that that's not a well-defined term in FP and P. And so, when I first came here, about 30 years ago, I was familiar with several cases in which people were hired jointly in two departments and it was the sort of death knell for their tenure. Because the department, one department, I don't know the departments worked together appropriately to make sure that they got tenure. >> So, okay, go ahead, I'm sorry. >> So, I would support having it called administrative home, but I am worried that with loose terminology, that there might not be agreements on what responsibilities there are, right, in each department. >> Yes, absolutely. >> And so, if you have a well-defined term such as tenure home, that implies responsibilities, whereas administrative home does not. That would be my only concern, I would certainly support this, but I would want you to think carefully before going that direction. So I'm going to vote against the amendment. >> Let me make sure everybody's clear where we are here. This is in 7.02, Departmental Role; one department shall be identified as the principle sponsor of the recommendation for appointment for the purposes of 5.20 dot A dot 2 of these rules, and this department shall be considered the tenure home. Right? And what's being proposed in the amendment is that we will now call that the administrative home. And then it goes on to lay out every place that tenure home exists, it would be administrative home. And as a chancellor indicated, and this is the way it's working now, right? That unit, and this can be a department or a department like unit, right, will be the one that is going to process the paperwork for someone to be promoted or moved through other processes. So, I think that is defined in this language and it was, that was added, because we didn't have an indication of that principle sponsor and kind of what it did. So, the goal here is to make sure that these provisions are again, as I said earlier, articulated out of the box when a person has a joint appointment. >> Mike Belden, Community Environmental Sociology. Just perhaps a friendly amendment, if it doesn't muddy the waters further, how about it said tenure or administrative home? [ Ambient Noise ] I don't know if [inaudible], no, apparently that's not regarded as a friendly amendment. But while I'm on the microphone, I will, that's fine, I would say, I still don't see how post-tenure review is being handled in this. I don't want to make a big mess about this-- >> I appreciate that comment, but we've got to stay on the amendment, right now. >> Yes, I just want to make sure that you are thinking about this, it might have to be a separate administrative matter. >> Alright, so let's stay on this amendment about changing tenure home to administrative home. >> Karl Broman, Biostatistics and Medical Informatics. Just wanted to respond to your point. You said that this, these amendments that are being made, are in order to make sure that it's clear what this administrative home, this new thing, will be. So if you read these amendments you'll see that in the amendments that we're now amending, you'll see that it's stipulating exactly and the concern that you might have. I mean, and the reason to switch to administrative home, which I'm very supportive of, is that we want people to be able to have multiple tenure homes, to be you know, fully, you know, full members of multiple departments. What we want to be clear that someone needs to be sort of, yeah, exactly. Someone needs to be responsible of making sure it all happens and this document as amended, will say, it basically is just saying that must happen. [ Ambient Noise ] >> Alright, I'm going to try to move this towards a vote, are there any other comments on the amendment? All those in favor of changing the term tenure home to administrative home, throughout this proposed document, indicate by saying aye. >> [multiple] Aye. >> Are there any opposed? That amendment carries. We're now back to the full document, as amended, and looking for any farther comments on the full document. >> Kurt Paulsen, District 76. Not an amendment, just something to flag for administrative, there are likely older faculty who have some sort of joint appointment where there's ambiguity in the appointment letters, that would require the reissuance of a clarified appointment letter. There's neither in here that would give the clear indication that in those situations, which department or which interest shall prevail in the renegotiation of a clarified appointment letter. I'm thinking of people who might have 50-50 splits. And I think we want to be clear as the sense of a senate that it should be the individual faculty member in those cases, to choose his or her lead department or administrative home, and/or appeals on that issue should go to Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. Just want to maintain the faculty governance over this particular issue. If that makes any sense. >> That's duly noted and again, going back to the original Genesis of this, the University Committee has got a fair amount of experience dealing with that very issue and so we're hoping that going forward, we'll have few of them and we'll continue to be the arbiter of situations that you described. [ Ambient Noise ] >> Are there any other comments on the overall document? [ Ambient Noise ] >> Sorry to be a pain on this issue. I just want to make sure that we, we have some-- >> --identify yourself. >> We have some-- Mike Bell, Department of-- >> Are you a member of the Senate, are you? >> I am the, an alternate. >> You're an alternate, and you don't know what division you're in? That's going to have to get recorded. >> No I don't. >> We'll figure it out. >> I just want to make sure that we have some way of dealing with a situation where perhaps there's a post-tenure review and the different departments involved don't agree. So does this administrative home language, shift that? How are we going to deal with these issues? I just don't see it dealt with in this document. So this may not be the right place for it. Just give me a sense that it's duly noted that you will address how this works out so we can deal with situations in which there's conflict over this. >> Just in the same context of Kurt's, that's duly noted and we will, I'm pretty confident that it will. [ Ambient Noise ] >> Yeah, and as I read this document, it says quite clearly that this continuing commitment continues for as long as the faculty member holds tenure, which suggests to me these procedures will, you know, anything that happens after tenure, is covered by this. But we will certainly make sure [inaudible]. Any other comments on the overall document? This is a second reading so we will be voting on the document as amended. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. >> [multiple] Aye. >> Any opposed? Alright, that passes. Let me again recognize Professor Warfield, who's going to present a resolution celebrating 125 years of sifting and winnowing, and you're not allowed to amend those two terms. [ Laughter - Ambient Noise ] >> That's a relief. I move adoption of Faculty Document 2853, and that's a resolution celebrating 125 years of sifting and winnowing. Our resolution is passed and if passed, will complement similar resolutions passed by the Academic and University Staff governance groups. >> I need a second on this. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Alright, [inaudible] >> I hope you'll support it. >> Is there any discussion? Anyone who wants to argue against supporting 125 years? I want your name if you are. All those in favor of this resolution, indicate by saying aye. >> [multiple] Aye. >> Any opposed? The motion carries. We are at the end of the agenda, and the Faculty Senate is adjourned. Thank you very much.