>> All right, Chancellor, we go ahead and started. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: All right, thank you all. Welcome, everyone, to our November Faculty Senate meeting. I'd say it's good to see you all, but of course, I can't see any of you but I appreciate you all being here virtually. I think you all know the rules by now, but just to repeat them, if you wish to speak, raise your hand by clicking on the little button near the bottom of the screen that has someone with your hand raised on it. And one of the moderators will make you a presenter, which allows you to talk. And at that point, you want to unmute your microphone as soon as you made a presenter and wait until someone calls on you to start speaking. Let us turn to the Memorial Resolutions. Please show respect as you wish as we move into them. Let me recognize Professor Emeritus Marc Silberman, to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Klaus L. Berghahn. And I should note that family members Marcus and Laura Berghahn are in attendance as well as many colleagues. Do we have Marc? >> Marc is having problems hearing, but I think he's able to speak. Marc, it looks like your microphone is on, if you want to go ahead and read the resolution. >> Professor Marc Silberman: Can you hear me? >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: We can hear you. >> Professor Marc Silberman: Yes. OK, thank you very much. Thank you, Chancellor Blank. It's an honor to read the short summary of the Memorial Resolution co-authored by my America colleague Coralie Kluger [assumed spelling] and myself. Professor Klaus L. Berghahn died in Madison on November 1st, 2019, one year ago, a member of the Department of German from 1967 until his retirement in 2007. He was known internationally for his scholarship, teaching and commitment to his field. The numerous awards Berghahn received reflect the high respect he enjoyed as a fellow of several research institutes, including in Germany and in Israel, and as a visiting professor and lecturer, a specialist in 18th century German literature, the role of German Jewish thinkers and interdisciplinary German studies. He established the UW Center for German and European studies in 1998, and held administrative positions within the UW as well as in national and international organizations. Those who know -- knew Berghahn will miss him deeply. Thank you. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Thank you very much, Professor Silberman. Let me now recognize Professor Lea Ziskind-Conhaim to present the Memorial Resolution for Professor Emeritus Peter Lipton. And I should note that Peter's wife, Pat Lipton, is in attendance. And welcome, Pat. >> Professor Lea Ziskind-Conhaim: Remembering and honoring our beloved colleague and friend, Peter Lepton. Peter Lepton, a professor of neuroscience died in his home on June 2019 after battle with adrenal cortical cell carcinoma. Patricia, his beloved wife of 56 years, goes by side. Peter received his PhD in biophysics at UCSF. He joined the faculty at UW Madison in 1972 and remain an active dedicated his beloved faculty member until his retirement in early 2019. Peter was an inspiring scholar with a wide range of scientific interest. His research focused primarily on studying the molecular mechanism, underlie the damage caused by ischemic insult in nerve cells responsible for memory and learning. Peter was a dedicated compassionate teacher. His students loved him. He was deeply involved in the drive to finally establish an oral biology major on campus. He was a truly renaissance man. In addition to his passion for science and sports, he loved the theater, music, film and books. Peter was charismatic with a great sense of humor and boisterous laugh, a true match with tremendous compassion for the underserved among us. Peter will be sorely missed by those who were fortunate to know him and be inspired by him. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of our Memorial Resolutions and into our period of announcements. So let me start by saying a few words and then I'll turn it over to Kirsten Wolf, and then open up for questions. There is a lot going on. We are rushing into the second half of the semester, it's hard to believe it's already the early part of November. And as you know, COVID cases are steeply up both in the state and in Dane County. Amid all of this, I hope that you have each been taking care of your health, both physical and mental as we've gone through this very unprecedented semester. I'm particularly concerned that we've seen an uptick of infections among our employees, but no real pattern to it, it's sort of spread one person over here, one person over there. But please tell both your faculty and your staff to practice all the health protocols, both on and off campus, given the high numbers that are everywhere around us. I always like to start with at least one piece of good news. We just received the latest National Survey of Student Engagement, which is conducted in the spring, among seniors across all universities. On that survey, 91% of our seniors rank the academic quality of UW Madison is good or excellent, significantly higher than our pure average of 82%. And our students reported higher quality interactions with faculty, staff and other students and their peers at other schools, and that is a credit to all of you and your colleagues and your good work. And a little bit of good news on some long awaited projects, as I think many of you know, Nicholas Recreation Center has opened, available in more limited form right now, but it's a gorgeous building and I hope you get over there. And the Meat Science and Animal Biologics Discovery building, which is right next to that med building, is having a grand opening on this week on November 6. It is going to be a National Center for Research and Innovation, a place where industry partners can come to help sell problems and to develop new products. We want Wisconsin to have participle meat products there as well known and nationally recognized as our artisanal cheeses. We continue to show good numbers in terms of code affections on our campus. We had almost six weeks or a positive activity rate was 1% or lower. The numbers ticked up a little bit last week that are, you know, staying below 2%, and that is well below Dade County and far, far below the state. We are currently one of the safest places in the state to be. With that uptick in numbers and it's not large, but it's there, we are seeing a dispersed rise in infections across campuses. I noted, just a few more employees, just a few more on campus students, just a few more people scattered, you know, one in this dorm and one in that dorm with one exception that I'll talk about in a minute, there are no clear patterns, and almost all of these cases are traceable to off campus activities. I think it's the inevitable effect of living in an environment where infections are all around us, and they will seep into the community over time at a slightly higher rate. After Robert Redfield, the CDC director visited campus 10 days ago and highlighted our response to the outbreak as a model for others to follow. Now, one place, as you all know, where there was a very clear pattern and a very clear outbreak is among our football team and coaches. We canceled the Nebraska game this past weekend. I don't know quite what's going to happen in the coming weekend. We are working through the current outbreak in consultation with the Big Ten with our own doctors, and we want to be sure the Coach Chris and the players are healthy before they're out there to play. Let me move into our plans for the spring. Educationally, it's going to look a lot like the fall, a hybrid model that recognizes that where we can do face-to-face learning particularly for our freshmen, it is important to have that option available for our faculty who want to teach face-to-face and we know that there are many students who want to have at least one face-to-face class amidst their online class. We're actually serving students on this issue right now to better understand their experience and to improve on it and to talk with them about spring semester. We have canceled spring break, as you all know, you did that here in the Faculty Senate and are extending winter break by one week. The biggest change for the spring, however, is going to be a much more expensive testing plan. We are aiming for what is considered the gold standard, testing all students both those living on and off campus twice a week, and testing all employees certainly those who come to campus at least weekly. There'll be so we want to test twice a week, there'll be others who probably only have to test once a week. Getting there in the January, making sure we can monitor and enforce that type of testing regime is going to take a lot of work and we are in the midst of that right now. We currently process about 6,000 tests a week and we're going to have to ramp up by a factor of 10 or more to get to twice a week for on and off campus students and a good number of our employees. I do continue to worry about mental health issues. Prices calls are up 300% and the need for survivor services for students who are grieving a family loss has doubled over the last year. We are also -- My phone is ringing, I didn't turn it off. Let me turn that off. We've also added 10 new mental health providers this fall. And our new director of mental health services is meeting with faculty to help them learn how to support students and how to recognize in this poor distant learning environment when a student needs help. As you all know, we're going to be shifting away from in person instruction to complete the semester remotely, and we're sending those instructions out to students, but the basic issue is if you need to stay through to complete the semester, and there are some people for whom that is true, we strongly recommend you do not travel, particularly given the outbreaks in Wisconsin in the upper Midwest. If you plan to travel, please get tested before you leave, and do not return to campus if at all possible. If you must come back, please test and isolate when you return until you receive the test results. And we will have things set up to make all of that possible. I should say, similar recommendations apply to our employees. We hope that they gather only with immediate family. If they must travel, they should think about testing before returning back to campus. I hope many of you had the chance to participate in the diversity forum last week. It was our largest and most successful event ever. Over 5,000 people registered an amazing number it is. One thing you can do with virtual event is it's unlimited numbers, but far exceeds the 1,500 attended in person last year. The discussion was framed from the deep racial divisions that COVID-19 has exposed and Lamont is free of racial injustice in this country. As a top public university and a place with a long tradition of activism, he can and must be part of addressing those interconnected issues. Let's starts with making sure we hear different voices and points of view and life experiences that they were represented on our campus. And in the process of meeting with different student groups, most of which have different priorities and demands, but sometimes gets lost is the enormous amount of effort we have put into these issues in recent years and that we will continue to work on and ramp up. In August, we officially welcomed the 85 new faculty of color, almost half of all of our new faculty. We're also attracting and retaining more students of color. In our current freshmen class, 13.5% of the students are from underrepresented targeted groups, far above where they've been. To put that in context, six years ago, we had just 600 freshmen students from targeted minority groups in our freshman class. Today, we have nearly 1,000. That type of growth doesn't just happen by accident, it is the result of strategic planning in the admissions office and a lot of work to raise more scholarships that particularly make it possible for low income students to attend. We are now retaining more than 96% of our students of color between freshmen and sophomore year, that's actually higher than the retention rate for white students. We have to continue to build on this progress, and that doesn't mean just counting numbers, that means changing the culture. But we're working hard on expanding our educational and training programs. The vice chancellor for Student Affairs Office is wrapping up a variety of additional students on training and education efforts and show getting Zahra interim diversity officer is working in her office to expand some faculty and staff education and training options. And on the research front, I hope you all know and have informed your faculty about the fact that the VCRGE office is launching a funding competition to support faculty research that works on our understanding of racial inequities in the United States. Creating a more diverse and inclusive campus is the best way to provide a 21st century education to all of our students. It is work we all have to do and for which we all take leadership responsibility. Make sure into the budget, no Chancellor's presentation is complete without a few words of the budget. Budget crisis is real. I told you that before. We have many revenue sources that are down while our COVID related costs are obviously up. We released a very detailed statement a week ago about our budget this year and some of the steps we're taking to deal with the financial challenges. Our biggest losses are in the auxiliaries, athletics, conferences, unions, parking housing that shouldn't surprise any of you. Some of those units basically have no revenue this year. And we've also lost state dollars. We've lost more than $15 million in state funds that we had to return that we never received since last April. Our tuition goes down a little, partially because we have a different mix of students. Students are staying a little closer to home, so we have a few more Minnesota, Wisconsin students, and a bit fewer coastal students and, of course, fewer international students for other reasons, and we're spending more. To estimate the cost of our increased testing and health protocols over this entire year, including providing isolation and quarantine space for ill students, is going to be around 50 million. Now, the scale of that loss means we need both short-term fixes and long-term adjustments get back to a stable budget. As we noted in that message a week ago, overall, we're expecting to have $320 million less than we were forecasting just a year ago for this current budget year, that's a big hit. We took a lot of steps, we frozen salaries, hiring, pull back the distributions we were planning for new programs, and implemented six months of progressive furloughs. We also received $40 million in federal funding, which is helpful, and we were using a substantial share of our reserves to cover losses, but we need to make further budget adjustments. As noted, the auxiliaries are going to have to solve their own problems. They're not cutting budgets among any of you in order to help them out. They may be making loans to them that they have to repay. But we still have big cuts left in our core 101 type budget. Last Monday, we announced that our six months of furloughs are going to become a full year. We're taking November and December off, and then we implementing six more months of furloughs under the same progressive furlough scheme that we were on for the previous six months. It's designed so that lower paid employees have smaller reductions and higher paid employees. The impact ranges from 2.5% to 4.6% of salary in any given month. Combined with earlier furloughs, that means that there's basically a year here of lower salaries for all of our employees, and I'm very sorry about that. Now, some of this will be offset by the 2% pay increase that the state legislature approved that everyone will receive on January 1st. And for lower income employees, we're also putting in place the $15 per hour minimum wage that we delivered last spring when the COVID crisis hit. So that means our lower level employees will be hurt less and even less than just the furloughs alone like suggest. In recognition of the sacrifices that all of our employees are making, I and the vice chancellor are taking a 15% voluntary pay cut over this entire year period, while the deans are taking a 10% pay cut over this next six months of furlough. That isn't enough and there's still will be some basic budget cuts in all of the units. We're working out their magnitude and clearly will be cutting administrative units more than academic units, and we will share those details with UC with other governance groups as we're working through them. To close, I know everyone is thinking about tomorrow's election and voting fits naturally into campus that emphasizes civic engagement. The badgers vote coalition, the student coalition, in collaboration with ASM, Andrew Goodman Foundation, the Madison City Clerk's Office, and a lot of units and departments across campus, I posted a lot of virtual events to increase voter participation among our students. We've been engaged in robots messaging all through the fall, and we've had two weeks of in person absentee voting here on our campus from October 20th to 30th at three different locations. I heard some you use those. For the first time this election season, you were able to create an electronic voter ID that when students go to the polls on Tuesday, they can access so they don't have to bring a physical ID card with them, and that is going to be very helpful as well. It has been contentious and difficult election season and there's a lot of anxiety on all sides about what's going to happen tomorrow and in the days and weeks that follows should there be a close result of the election. I want to encourage every member of our campus community to be patient, as we let this process unfold. Our inability to be together in person makes all of this that much harder. But it's at moments of crises, a pandemic and economic recession, friction calls for racial justice, coupled with a very contentious and split election, that we need to continue to find ways to engage respectively, respectfully, and to support one another. We will stay committed in teaching our students, how to engage in civic conversation, and how to build and maintain a democracy. So let me stop there and turn it over to Kirsten Wolf, who I think also has a few words to say. Kirsten. >> Professor Kirsten Wolf: Thank you very much. So we come back about the promotion to folks -- -- who attended the two town halls. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Kirsten, you were fading in and out. >> Do you want to try to turn off your camera, Kirsten? [Inaudible] Try to turn off your camera. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: And let's start from the beginning because we missed a lot of it. >> Professor Kirsten Wolf: Thank you, Chancellor. I've only have a few remarks, and these have to do with the [inaudible] proposal. [Inaudible] thank you, everyone -- two of the two town halls to discuss the proposal. We had, I would say 90 plus faculty, and your comments were very helpful. I believe there was agreement that we need campus-wide guidelines providing due process and also a short consideration for associate professors. And the university committee is now working on a new version of this section for the faculty policies and procedures. The earliest, you will see this come to the Faculty Senate is December, but given that consideration for honorary degrees is traditionally at that meeting. We may and probably will have to delay until February because we want to take your considerations very seriously. And also, if you have other comments or further comments to share, please email them to the Secretary of the Faculty Office, Heather Daniels. Also, the Secretary of the Faculty, Heather Daniels, is currently soliciting applications for the Distinguished Teaching Award, and the Hilldale Awards. So please, please nominate your outstanding colleagues. And you can see their websites for details. Or if you can't find the websites, please contact Heather Daniels, the secretary or the faculty. Last but not least, tomorrow is Election Day. I should have doubted that that would have escaped your attention, if you're eligible, and haven't already, please, please vote tomorrow. So now, back to the Chancellor. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: I and the university committee are both open for questions. Any questions or comments that anyone wants to make? [Inaudible] do you recognize people and pose them in chat? [Inaudible]. Yeah. >> Professor Marc Silberman: OK, I think I'm unmuted. Thank you, Chancellor. I wanted to ask a question. Item 8 on the agenda today, as you know, this is a response to Donald Trump's executive order on combating race and sex stereotyping that was issued in September. I've read in the New York Times that some institutions, like the University of Iowa, paused a diversity training programs because they fear the loss of federal research grants through the executive order. Just to be clear, am I right that the University of Wisconsin-Madison is not fighting any such causing along those lines, am I right about that? >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: You're absolutely right. >> Professor Marc Silberman: Great. Thank you. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Any other comments or questions? >> Go ahead [inaudible], you should be able to speak. >> There's should be an unmute button at the bottom. >> Oh, OK. OK. Can you hear me now? >> Yup. >> OK, good. This is [inaudible] from School of Internal Medicine. Thanks Chancellor for this nice report. I wish it could be nicer, but given our budget situation. But you mentioned that we have like about -- spend about $50 million for all of the extra hygienic measures that you have to do, and also for the testing. And my question is connected to testing, twice a week for students and once a week for faculty and staff. I hope this testing would allow for some exemptions, because during the last few months, we have students -- guide students and faculty and staff develop schedule when they come to the campus once or twice -- I mean, once, twice a week, three times a week. But even when they come here, it's been a couple of hours, this you know, buddy, and just go back, go backwards a game, a comb or something. So, which means that we really do need to do this regular testing for this kind of people who did this kind of changes as a routine, which will reduce the cost and also would cause an anxiety during the testing week. So I was wondering if the system will allow some flexibility, so faculty and staff and grad students who come and spend a couple of hours to see anybody and meet with anybody, they can be tested maybe once a month, twice a month instead of once a week. Thank you. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: So this is a real important question. And we're still trying to work out what the right requirements would be. I'm pretty convinced that for undergraduates, whether you are on or off campus, and regardless of whether you are here for in person classes on a regular basis, you're interacting with all sorts of your friends who may be on our campus, and twice a week is absolutely necessary for undergraduate. We obviously have a number of graduate students and faculty who don't come to campus at all and we're not going to require testing for them. And we have people who are there every day, and some people like those who work in our residence halls need to be tested twice a week, like the students. Those who are here every day, I think at least once a week, and of course, anyone could be tested twice a week, we'll set it up that way if they wish. The hardest thing is those who come occasionally, right. And we're sort of still working out what is reasonable on that front. And I suspect we're going to start at least by airing a little bit on the side of saying, you know, if you're on campus, you really do want to be tested pretty regularly. That's, you know, that's part of keeping the campus safe, and you never know who you are going to interact with, or who else will show up in the workplace while you're there. But we haven't made final decisions on that one and I'm quite sure whatever we do, we're going to make some people feel a little annoyed because it will cause a little bit of inconvenience. And I understand that, but that is the effect of trying to increase the testing. Thank you. Anyone else? I don't want to rush off to the minutes, but I will do so if no one else raises their hand. All right. In that case, I'm going to ask all of you to turn to the minutes of October 5th, which is in your packet. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? I see no hands being raised, so I'm going to state that the minutes are approved just distributed. If you find any problems, let me know. Let's turn to item number 5, and let me ask Professor Jordan Rosenblum to come forward to present the annual report for the lectures committee. Professor Rosenblum. >> Professor Jordan Rosenblum: Hello, can you hear me? >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Yes, we can. >> Professor Jordan Rosenblum: OK, great. Well, welcome to my basement. So I will try and make this quick, because no one wanted a committee to go on for too long. Report is available and I want to just quickly highlight a few things and I can take questions after that, which is this apply. We have funds. We weren't able to all of them last year for obvious reasons, so please do continue to apply. Some pointers for that is come up a lot, I figured that is most useful to talk about those is, we still encourage people, for example, to continue to apply, even though it's -- you're imagining virtual events. So still want to have an active profile here. We want to bring in the world's best tech and the state's best to talk to our students, staff, faculty. So please do continue to apply. Obviously, you won't be applying for plane tickets. But, for example, you still should be applying for honoraria, we should still be compensating academic labor. But we do have a max of 600 and really, you have to justify more than that. It can't just be what the person wants more money, but [inaudible], so but please continue to apply for that. In general, we've been asking people to really -- and fundraise about half of it. So if you're asking for $1,200, try -- a ballpark is to get about 600. I used to be that you'd get like 20 letters of support with no money, it would be better to get two letters of support with some money. But if you don't make that half mark, tell us why, expect like your small program that is a $20 budget for the year. And you say, we're putting $100 into this, but that tells us a lot. We don't want to penalize that. But if everyone could have that goal, also our resources go that much further. But write it in if you have questions, let us know. And so, we have these things called fixed funds that are mentioned in the report, which have to do with -- it was created, I'm going to read it the report, with the specific goal of bringing to Madison experts, especially business people to give lectures on the American free enterprise system. We can interpret that broadly, right. Economics doesn't just have to be the economics department in the business school. Like it could be economics in medieval European history, or in early modern American literature. And there are a lot more -- Everything we all know, there are a certain rules for certain funds. And the Fitch funds have a little bit -- there's a little bit more flexibility with those. Now, when we're in person, it's different because that -- you can use that, for example, to host a reception or something. So look into that post pandemic time, but also whenever they're talking -- touches on economics as to see if it can be Fitch funds because we have actually a large amount of money at that pot that doesn't get used enough. So, I encourage you to think about that. Otherwise, I don't know if I'm supposed to allow time for questions or not, but that's the main points I would want to take away from that. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Are there any questions for Jordan? Pause the minutes to let people raise their hand. I'm not seeing anyone, Jordan, so thank you very much. And thanks for all the work your committee does over the year. >> Professor Jordan Rosenblum: Thank you. Have a good day. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Take care. Moving to item number 6. Let me again recognize Professor Kirsten Wolf who's going to move changes to faculty policies and procedures, Chapter 3, for a vote. We had this presented last month is the first reading. And so this month, we will be voting. Kirsten, you probably -- given the problems you had, probably you keep your camera off and speak with. >> Professor Kirsten Wolf: Yeah, absolutely. So on behalf -- Thank you, Chancellor. On behalf of the university committee, I move adoption of faculty document 2906. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Because it's the UC making a motion, there is no need for a second, and we'll open up the floor for discussion. Kirsten, do you want to start by making the first remarks? >> Professor Kirsten Wolf: Absolutely. I want to mention that we are talking here about a very small number of academic staff. As far as I understand, they are primarily in the biological sciences, but maybe others can correct me on this. And so, I just want to also say that there were no changes made to document 2906 following the first meeting at the Senate last month. So this change creates a mechanism by which academic staff could retain graduate faculty status, following their retirement or resignation. This would allow them to continue to serve as the sole advisor to a graduate student allowing for continuity and successful degree completion. Here the process is more rigorous than for faculty who automatically became graduate faculty status for a year following a retirement or resignation. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Thank you, Kirsten. Are there comments, questions, issues that anyone wants to raise on this resolution? I'm not seeing anyone step forward. I take that to mean that you are all ready to vote. And we will be voting using the polling function in Blackboard that should appear on your screen. And only those of you who are senators should vote. And a simple yes or no will do. Yes means that you support the motion, and no means that you don't. Heather, do you want to put up the voting? >> Yes. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: It should be all right. >> It should be [inaudible]. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: All you have to do is click yes or no, you don't have to do anything else. How we doing, Heather? >> It looks like they slow down, so I will share the responses now. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: That looks like an overwhelming vote, yes. There's still some people who haven't responded. I'm going to give you a few more seconds here if you want to vote, so everyone gets a chance. All right, I'm going to declare that finished. And Heather, I'll let you record the vote, and that will be a yes for passing that resolution. Thank you all very much. We now recognize Professor Bill Tracy, member of UC. He is going to move changes to Chapter 6 of faculty policy and procedures. And again, we discussed this in the first meeting last week, so coming back now with a resolution on which we expect to vote. >> Professor Bill Tracy: Yes, thank you, Chancellor. Last month, we brought this up as the first reading and there were some concerns among the senators and really wanted to address those concerns. We still feel that the best course where the commission is to actually remove it from FPNP, but we want to give greater reasons why. For at least a decade, [inaudible] commission members in the UC, this commission has not served the purpose of [inaudible] FPNP. For the last few years, it hasn't met at all. This is because we believe that is UW-Madison has grown and changed, the commissions charge duties and now done by other committees and entities. And so, I don't want to belabor the point, but if we look at the commission's charges, I do want to convince you that this is the right decision to eliminate commission. Charge 2 -- The charge 1 is actually fairly trivial. Charge 2 charges the commission with preparing for the information of the faculty, studies of faculty economic needs and desires, including such comparative data from other universities and professional fields. UW-Madison's academic planning and institutional research office compiles that data on a regular basis and makes it available to the university committee. When I was on profs, I've got data from a group as well, so that is available from that group. It's also available to the shared Budget Governance Committee. Charge 3 is to prepare for the Faculty Senate recommendations concerning faculty compensation and economic benefits for the transmission to the administration. And this is done now, not only by the university committee, but also by the budget committee, FPNP 6.25. The other part of this charge is to share this these recommendations, the Board of Regents, the governor, and the legislature, and that is done by profs today. And so, again, not necessary for the commission. And finally, the other meaningful charge is to represent the faculty and discussions, hearings and other appropriate settings that present faculty policy recommendations and requests. This is, again, done currently by the UC by profs and the shared budget -- Shared Governance Budget Committee. I don't know if you're all aware about the shared budget -- the Shared Governance Budget Committee. There are four faculty members, two academic staff members, two university staff members, two students that include both graduate and undergraduate students and ex officio on voting members, including the campus budget director, Chancellor, or designee, the provost or designee and the vice chancellor for finance and administration. If you check FPNP 6.25, you'll find that many of the charges are similar to the commission. The Budget Commission does meet and has filed annual reports. And as I said, the commission -- the Budget Committee does, unlike the commission which has not met for two years. For all these reasons, we believe -- the university committee believes that removing the commission from FPNP is the right course. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Thank you, Bill. There's no second needed since the UC is making the motion. I should note that the report that is produced annually, comparing faculty salaries with peers with other groups around the university, is publicly available to anyone. I also report on that when those data come out to the Senate in the next Senate meeting, and it gets automatically sent to the deans and various governance groups. But I suspect it's posted somewhere, I just don't know where. Anyone can get hold of that quite easily. Let me open up for comments or discussion, questions, issues. >> Professor Bill Tracy: Chad? >> Professor Chad Goldberg: Thank you. >> Professor Bill Tracy: Yeah. >> Professor Chad Goldberg: Can you hear me? >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: We can. >> Professor Chad Goldberg: OK, great. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Bill, for coming back with this sort of more detailed point by point discussion. You know, I am still a bit concerned about. This is something that sort of sits with me and easily about this. And I understand that there's a problem with the way that this body is currently constituted, but I'm wondering if there was any thought given to reconstituting it, or reforming it, or revisiting the duties of the body as opposed to get ridding -- getting rid of it altogether. I think we agree that it's vitally important for the faculty to have input on faculty compensation and economic benefits. And so the -- I think the crux of the matter is really about what's the best way of doing this. And I guess my concern is that by taking this out of FPNP, whether this would create the possibility down the road of this work gradually being taken hand -- being taken out of the hands of the faculty, I think it's really important for the faculty to remain involved in this. And having a provisional like this in FPNP provides some anchor, some basis for ensuring that that is at least a possibility. If this is taken out, what's to prevent that from eroding over time, and for this to become increasingly something that is handled by administration, and which faculty take an increasingly passive role. So I'm not sure that I'm entirely sold just yet, and I want to share those concerns. I guess I'm speaking against the motion, because I'm not sure I'm entirely sold on this. Thank you. >> Professor Bill Tracy: Yeah. I appreciate your comments, Chad. We did discuss it in the university committee a couple of times about whether we could -- what we could do to make this more functional and short of writing FPNP -- well, we are rewriting FPNP with this motion, basically. But given the actions or the activity of the truly shared governance committee, where academic staff and university staff are involved, as well as students, we see that as part of this. The other part is obviously the UC, and the UC through profs is very attentive to this goal. This is one of the main [inaudible] to keep the UC inform [inaudible] through the UC. And again, that's us having served as president across for a number of years, I can assure you that that's the main charge of profs. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Noah, you have your hand up. Do you want to speak? >> Professor Noah Feinstein: All right, I believe I'm unmuted now. Thank you. >> Professor Bill Tracy: Yup. >> Professor Noah Feinstein: I appreciate the additional detail. I'm representing district 17, community environmental sociology. I brought this issue to my departmental colleagues today and there was an interesting discussion about our current budget conditions, and the reality that we face and are likely to face in the future where we have a state legislature, which is not always sympathetic to the financial needs of the university. Under these circumstances, existence of a strong shared governance infrastructure for dealing with unexpected concerns feels very important. And although the university committee is a wonderful and efficient and effective audit, the fact that this purview of this committee falls also under its purview is not entirely a solution to that problem, particularly with a clause in the briefing document, which suggested unexpected concerns might be dealt with your ad hoc committees. I know that that's something that we do, but it's definitely not as good as having a shared governance committee when an issue of great importance arises. Our department was unanimous in their opposition to this change. We agreed that some form of change is necessary and that a reenvisioning of this committee, perhaps an official acknowledgement of its dormancy for some period of time until needed is necessary, that eliminating the committee seemed short sighted to us. >> Professor Bill Tracy: I appreciate your comments, Noah. Yeah, UC has struggled with this committee -- commission for 15 years. I was on the on the commission 15 years ago, and we did nothing then. The UC has tried numerous times to change it. And last few years, the [inaudible] committees has not been able to get anybody to serve on it. So if we're going to go down this road and change it, we really need folks to step up and serve on it. And I would also say that, based on the last 15 years of experience, there are other places that we could use, the fact these time and talents in terms of community service. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Lisa Gralnick, you're next. You want to unmute yourself? Lisa, you're up. All right, I'm going to go to Eric Sandgren who seems to be up next. And if Lisa comes back, we'll try to get you on. Eric. >> Professor Eric Sandgren: Hi, thanks. I would like to address in some more detail the discussions that we had at the university committee. Some of these same concerns were raised last time, and I think we all tended to agree with them. But when we came right back down to trying to identify a way to modify this particular committee, we didn't find anything that seemed wasteful to us. I think a better approach to build in some of the subjects or at least part of the approach of this committee would be to explicitly modify the charge to the Shared Governance Budget Committee, that way, it's not last. But otherwise, given the demands we place on a faculty and others for shared governance, and given the problems we've had with this committee, it seems a far more effective way to move forward in our view, at least, to add something to the charge of an existing and robust and functioning committee. So that, ultimately, is why we went back to this decision to say, no, this isn't the way to accomplish these things. There should be something that's better. Thanks. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Thank you, Eric. Lisa Gralnick, now it looks like you're up and your microphone is unmuted. >> Professor Lisa Gralnick: Hi, Lisa Gralnick from the Art Department in the School of Ed. I have mixed feelings about getting rid of this committee. I served on the committee many years ago, but there are issues related to the situation that the university finds itself in right now because of the pandemic that I think that that committee could deal with. For instance, for those of us that are within three years of retirement, the furloughs are going to affect our retirement benefit, and I don't see any other place where an issue like that could be brought up than in that type of committee. It seems as if -- It seems sort of unfair for one of your three highest years of earnings to be affected for the rest of your -- >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Lisa, I think we lost you or are you still speaking? Heather, did we lose Lisa altogether? >> It looks like we did, yes. >> Professor Bill Tracy: I just would say I'm certainly sympathetic to the issue of retirement and that could be something that could certainly -- that perhaps could actually take on this agenda. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: I will note that issue has been raised already to HR, and we've got a group of people trying to work with the pension system to resolve that problem. And I'm hoping we're going to get somewhere, but it hasn't happened yet, but we're very well aware of that one. [inaudible], you're on. >> Yes. I'm also at an ease of getting rid completely of the committee, but also understand that it's been inactive and so on. So one of the things I think we should do at the same time when we -- if we already decided to go this route, is basically have the same charge to another committee, like the UC committee or the budget committee. But since you -- I have sorts of discussions, that this is something happening, so I think we should be clearly stated there. So at least we'll make faculty at ease when we say yes for getting rid of an important committee like this. I don't think that profs is great, but we have no control over profs. Profs is not -- has no -- I mean, as faculty governance, we don't have anything that can control boss, but we can definitely work with our own committees like the UC or the budget committee. This is just my opinion. >> Professor Bill Tracy: Let me make a point about profs. Profs is the public representation of the Faculty Senate. They work for the Senate. And UC is the Board of Directors of pros, so the Senate has direct control over profs. And -- >> OK, thank you. >> Professor Bill Tracy: And we meet with them on a regular basis. And at least three UC members are on the profs steering committee. And I will say, though, that it does seem that -- it does seem a desirable option, and I also saw a note from Noah about that -- including some of this language in the budget committee does make sense to me. >> Yeah. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Chad, you're up. >> Chad Goldberg: Yeah. So I just want to reiterate what Noah said in the chat and what Adele said just now that it -- rather than striking these functions from FPNP, rather than just eliminating them altogether, then this change really should be done in tandem with modifications to the budget committee charge and the UC charge. They should be reintroduced somewhere else at FPNP. And since this is not being done, I'm not prepared to vote for this right now. If this was tabled and brought back with those functions being placed elsewhere in FPNP, and allocated to other bodies, rather than just ad hoc kinds of arrangements, then I think I might be prepared to vote for this. But as it stands, I cannot vote for now. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Thanks, Chad. I am -- I really liked the solution about going back to 6.25 and the budget committee. And adding this, there's one complication there and we don't have to get rid of this committee today, the commission. But the complication is that as the chair governance committee, truly shared governance with university staff, academic staff, and students, it won't be just the Senate changing that role, so we'll have to talk to a number of people, which we can do and that's not a problem. I do like the idea of assigning it, or maintaining this language in the FPNP. And the way to do -- A good way to do it would be to look at the budget committee language. So we can postpone this motion and come back after we talk to the assembly and the ASM and talking about changing the language for the budget committee. >> I think that would go a long way toward addressing some of the concerns that you're hearing today. And I don't know if I need to do this, but I'd be happy to make such a motion to postpone this item so that the university committee can come back with an approach along the lines that we're discussing. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: So let me ask the parliamentarian here, is to write motion and motion to table, or what's the correct motion right now? >> Professor Bill Tracy: Yes. If you want to make a motion to postpone to a certain time, that would be the motion and the certain time would need to be noted in the motion. So if Senator Goldberg wished -- make such motion, just need to specify the time at which this would come back to the Senate for further consideration. [Inaudible]. >> Professor Chad Goldberg: Thank you, [inaudible]. Bill, did you see February would be good -- a good deal? >> Professor Bill Tracy: I think that we have to deal -- meet with the other governance bodies, so I think February would be -- especially given everything else going on, I think that would be the best we can do it. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: So we have -- >> Professor Chad Goldberg: [Inaudible] postponing this item until the February Senate meeting then. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Do I hear a second for that motion? >> Second. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: I didn't assume there's a second. All right, we're not going to have discussion on the proposal to postpone on that motion only. Steph, do you want to speak to that? >> I just think that this takes a lot more discussion on this. And as someone who has been involved in staffing the committees, I do get the difficulty of all of this, but I think [inaudible] it would be helpful talking about this more. Yeah, sorry. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak to the motion to table or are we ready to vote? Eric. >> Professor Eric Sandgren: I want to speak in favor too. I think that's a really good idea. We talked about doing it, but these forces it to be coupled, so I approve. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: All right. Anyone else who wants to speak to the motion to postpone until February? I'm not seeing any further hands. Heather, are you able to put up a vote? Voting yes here would postpone any further discussion of this until the February meeting and give the UC a chance to talk about the issues that have been raised to this discussion. Voting no would bring us back to a vote on the original motion. We're waiting to have the vote. Calculator put up. Heather, I'm not seeing the vote. There it is. OK. Oh, yes, you vote no. [Inaudible]. >> All right, everyone, I'll give you a couple more seconds here to get a last minute vote in and then I will show you the responses and you should stop voting at that point. I'm closing in three, two, one. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: All right. I would say that the results clearly support the motion to postpone until February. And I will ask the UC to take this back and to consider the comments and put it back on the agenda come from February. Thank you all. We have one more item of business on the agenda number 8. And let me recognize Professor Kristyn Masters, who's going to present the last agenda item, a resolution in support of instruction and training on diversity, equity, inclusion and social justice. This we will be voting on at the end of the discussion. Kristyn. >> Professor Kristyn Masters: Thank you. On behalf of the university committee, I move adoption of faculty document 2911. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: There's no motion needed since the UC us making this motion, so we're open for discussion. Kristyn, do you want to start by making the first remarks? >> Professor Kristyn Masters: Yes, please. Thank you. So the resolution before you, for your consideration, is a result of executive order issued in September by President Trump on combating race and sex stereotyping. So, as you may be aware, this executive applies to all entities receiving federal funds, have essentially require, association of many of our existing trainings directed to combating racism and sexism. So rather than just opposing the executive order that may only be in effect for a short period of time, the resolution instead is really focusing on reaffirming our commitment -- the commitment of the faculty instruction and training in diversity, equity, inclusion, social justice. So in other words, this resolution stands regardless of the fate of this executive order. It can be placed as an affirmation of our shared values in the future. The executive order is currently scheduled to go into effect later this month, so it would be timely the Faculty Senate could take action on this during this November meeting. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Thank you, Kristyn. Are there other comments, discussions, questions? John Mackay, you're up? [Inaudible]. >> Professor John Mackay: OK, thanks. I am definitely in support of the broad tenor of the resolution, but I'm a little bit concerned about one clause. So as Chad Alan Goldberg mentioned in the question period, there's some potential for a legal proceedings against the university. And in that event, it might turn out that the survival in current form of our diversity programs would depend on university council's ability to convince a judge or some federal officials that our programs are formally consistent with the executive order, at least, even though there might be some tensions in spirit. So I'm a little bit concerned about the wisdom of including one clause in the preamble, namely that whereas the executive order on combating race and sex stereotyping issued by President Trump on September 22nd, 2020, directly conflicts with the principles expressed by the Faculty Senate in it's resolution on May 2nd, 2016. It seems to me we should be very cautious indeed about going on the record to the effect that there is a direct conflict between the programs, as we will see them, and as executive order. I mean, I'm certainly no attorney, so I can't really address confidently the likelihood of that being used against us. But it seems to me that if -- it is indeed the Chancellor's position, as you've suggested in response to Chad, that we're positioned -- we are prepared to defend our programs as I think is absolutely the right decision. To be clear, it seems to me we should be kind of reluctant to go on the record stating that there's a conflict between our programs and this executive order. I mean, more generally, we tend to be very cautious indeed about any language that suggests that we endorse violations of any conditions for federal funding, not because we agree with the conditions, but just to allow the administration and university council maximum flexibility in responding to such a case. So I'm not sure, I mean, I guess -- I don't know if it's appropriate. I guess I would like to move an amendment to the resolution striking out that clause. Or maybe -- >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: So [inaudible] addresses the executive order, let me just count, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, I think it's the 11th whereas in the document. >> Professor John Mackay: Yeah, whereas the executive order on combating race and sex stereotyping. Again, I'm not interested in defending the executive order, but I just -- I don't think we want to go on the record stating that there's this direct conflict. >> So appointed [inaudible] -- >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Second to that motion, before we discuss. Is there a second to that motion? Yeah, I've got a second here in the chat box from Chad Goldberg. All right. Kristyn, do you want to say something? I'd like to say something as well. >> Professor Kristyn Masters: Yeah, I'll just say something really brief, which is that clause isn't necessarily saying what the university does, but rather that it conflicts with a sentiment previously expressed by the Faculty Senate. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: I will just say something about the executive order and what it says. It does not say that you cannot do diversity and inclusion training. It says there are certain types of things that you should not do that cast aspersions that suggest all people of a certain type have the same approach. So you could not say that all white people are racist. You cannot say that all men are patriarchal or sexist, that they -- you know, obviously, there's an interpretation here. But I think none of us believe that even if this executive order were to be implemented later this month that it would stop all diversity and training programs on campus. I think we almost surely have to look at them to make sure that we were not violating the spirit of that order. But I think we'd be quite clear that I think some of the things that says are reasonably limited. You know, all of that said, it is never a good idea to tempt the federal government to come after you. But up -- And Aswan, did you want to speak? You should unmute yourself. We're not getting you. Do you have a mute button you can hit, an unmute button? OK, you just set a date. All right, no comments. Kristyn, did you want to say something further? >> Professor Kristyn Masters: No, I do not. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: John Mackay? >> Professor John Mackay: Yeah, just in response to that. I mean, I agree with the Chancellor's remarks. And it seems to me that -- I mean, I took a look at the executive order, I'm not an expert in diversity training as such, but it struck me that what it really forbids is a kind of caricature, frankly, of diversity training. And precisely, because it is such an uncharitable and -- an uncharitable caricature, I think we're even -- aside from the strategic points I was trying to articulate, even on the merits itself, I think it's not true that it directly conflicts with the principles expressed by the Faculty Senate in that resolution. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: So we have an amendment on the table on proposal to strike the 11th, whereas that directly discusses the executive order. Is there any other discussion on that amendment itself that anyone wants to present? Comments, issues? So I think we will vote on the amendment then. And the amendment would strike that 11th, whereas, and change nothing else in the document? Are you ready to have us vote, Heather? >> Yes, I am. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: All right, [inaudible]. Yes here would strike that, whereas no would keep the document as it's written. How are we doing? >> I'll give everyone a couple more seconds here. >> No. >> I'll be closing this 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. OK, voting is closed. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: All right, it's 91 to 48, with a number of non-responses, so the amendment passes. And we now return to the full document minus one whereas clause for discussion. Is there other discussion, questions or comments? Peter [inaudible]. >> Working on it, hang on. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: We hear you. That's good. >> OK. I did get video for whatever reason. So I want to address briefly a couple of suggestions in whereas 9 and 10, which in my opinion are stated a little bit too hot, if you will. So I suggest having the word commonly in front of the word hold in number 9. So whereas it remains a fact that members of majority and minority communities probably hold implicit unconscious biases, and so on. Because I think it comes within a hair's breadth of saying that all due at this point, which we're going to follows, as the Chancellor just said, executive order says you can't do. And then I think in whereas number 10, the many of the previous facts are very old and are linguistically problematic to say that they're directly causing problems now. So I would like to say, the remains the fact that the legacy of the previous facts continues to have negative impacts. So I guess those are two friendly amendments to suggest. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: All right, so we add the word commonly between communities and hold on the ninth whereas, and we have the word legacies of, between the fact that the legacies of previous facts continues to have negative impacts. Is that -- Those are the -- That's the proposed amendments to those two. >> Yes. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Is there a second that? If so, please enter it into the chat. I have a second from Chad Goldberg. So we are now discussing these two amendments, which add one word to the ninth whereas and two words to the 10th whereas. Is there discussion of that amendment only? Can you put the proposed change in the chat, Heather, is that -- there's several people asking for that. >> I'm going to put it on the screen in March script here. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: OK. I've also got a request as to whether we should change these into two separate amendments. Everyone on the screen can see proposed changes. Comments, discussion? Bill, I got you up here. >> Professor Bill Tracy: Yeah. I oppose the first one would, commonly, because commonly might be necessary if it said all members of majority, minority community, it just says members, it doesn't say how many, so I don't really think the commonly is necessary there. And I think likewise, I don't -- I really don't think the legacy of adds anything to that sentence. Previous facts are essentially by definition a legacy. That said, it might make sense to divide these into two different motions. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: The way to do that would be someone to propose to amend this into two motions, which I believe would be the appropriate thing to do if someone wants to do that. >> Yeah, but I'm sorry to interrupt you. The motion would be to divide the question if someone wants to make that motion? >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: If someone wants to make the motion to divide the question or do you want to stick with these together? OK. Can I take this from the chat from Victoria Solomon as moving and Carl Roman is seconding? Could that work for the parliamentarian? >> I guess that's your prerogative, Chancellor. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: OK. I will that as being in the chat, so we are now going to look at the first of these two, which adds the word commonly as you can see here on this first whereas. Is there any discussion of that motion by itself? If there is not, I will move towards a vote. All those in favor of the amendment that adds the word commonly to the ninth whereas clause, Heather, if you can remove this and put the voting up. Victoria Solomon, did I stopped -- did you want to say something before I moved to voting? >> Professor Victoria Solomon: Yeah. [Inaudible] if you want to just be verbal, I'm happy to verbally say that I make the motion. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: OK. So we've moved that motion forward, right. Yeah. So the move to separate, I believe means we vote separately on each of these two motions. So we're now looking at the first motion only, which is you approve adding the word commonly. This is only about the first part of that motion, it's not about the second part. >> Chancellor? >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Yeah. >> We actually need to take a vote on whether to divide the question. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: I'm sorry, you're right. First -- I take it back. Heather, remove that. First, we have to vote on whether we are going to separate these into two separate. We have a motion and a second on the floor to separate the amendment we had into two separate motions. And we have to vote on that amendment to agree to separate this into two motions before we can then go back and vote on each motion separately. Is that clear to everyone? So we're voting on whether to separate these into two separate motions. So I'm going to move towards voting on that. All right, all of those who favor to move this into two motions vote yes, those who want to vote on the two together, vote no. >> All right, I'll give you another second here to vote. We're closing in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: All right, we have now agreed to separate these into two separate motions. Now, we'll go back to where I jumped into quickly. Let us look at the first motion, which adds the word commonly into the ninth whereas. Is there any discussion on that specific motion on what we have already had? If not, I think we're ready to vote on whether the word common [inaudible] or not. [Inaudible]. >> All right, it should be business. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Vote no, if you want to keep the whereas it also was originally written. >> And I'll give you a couple more seconds here. Close in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. All right, voting is now closed. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: The motion passes 82 to 60, with 44 nonresponses. So we add the word commonly to the ninth whereas. Let's now turn to the second of these two motions, which adds the words legacy of in the 10th whereas as you can see in front of you here. Is there any discussion of that wording addition? Joseph Austerweil [assumed spelling]. Do you want to unmute yourself? >> All right, thank you. I'm confused in what this changes in the meaning of the sentence. I'm getting tripped up by the facts and legacy of facts of legacies. And is the -- Someone explain exactly what this is intending to say. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Do you want to speak to that? >> Yeah. So the facts listed above are all stating thing -- most of them, most of them are stating things that are fit into a specific historical context they wish were legally resolved at times in the past. And so, the status before that cannot directly affect today, but the legacy thereof can, and I was trying to clarify that so that it is consistent with logical academic argument. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: John Mackay, did you want to make a comment? >> Professor John Mackay: No, sorry. I ended up putting it in the chat. It was a very small grammatical point. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: OK. And Noah, do you have a comment? >> Noah Feinstein: I dislike even the implication that some forms of discrimination are no longer ongoing, even though in some cases they may have received some form of legal resolution, so I oppose this particular change. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Are there other comments on this change? [Inaudible], did you want to say something again? I lost him. Dan Stone. Dan, if you unmute yourself, you're on. Dan, you need to unmute yourself and then we can hear you. >> Sorry about that. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Yup. >> I would like to remove. It remains a fact that that part of the phrases just seems redundant and confusing. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: With the proposal or the motion consider that a friendly amendment, so read well is it remains -- [inaudible], whereas the legacy of the previous facts continue to have negative impacts, that would be grammatically clearer. Peter would you be willing to accept that as a friendly amendment without a further vote. Peter needs to get up into the speaker's line. Peter, now you're up there. Yeah. >> Yeah. So I'd be neutral on that change, which I suppose means yeah, so I accept that as a friendly [inaudible]. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: I prefer not to go through the whole vote. I think this is purely grammatical. So the proposed change with your agreement, and does the seconder also agreed to that, so say so in the chat. Yes, second. All right, so I think we've got agreement here. So the proposals the legacy of the previous facts continues to have negative impacts. Are there other comments on that, on this change as proposed? Peter, did you do want to say something more? >> Yeah. I'm just looking at the stuff in the -- in the chat that says the word legacy means it doesn't exist, that was not the intention. But many of the things that are in there, as I mentioned, and I am not trying to say they're culturally resolved or resolved in fact, but they were feeling resolved in current legal problems. So a legacy of those specific things is all that's left. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: All right, we've had a number of comments on this and I don't see further hands, so we're going to move to vote on this proposal, which inserts the word legacy of before the words previous facts, and then for grammatical purposes cleans up the first few words before that. Do I see [inaudible]? Are we ready to vote on that? There's an active conversation still going on in the chat, but you can all read it. Heather, why don't you put up the vote? Yes here would make these proposed changes, and no would leave this whereas as it was originally written. All right, everyone should be voting. All right, I'll give you a second more, but I think we've got almost everyone voted. We'll close in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: All right, the second motion goes down 106 to 36, so we are now back to where we looked for. There has been a word inserted in, whereas 9, whereas 11 has been eliminated. And the rest of the document is as it was originally proposed. Is there further discussion? So you want to move Kurt up? Kurt you're up? Unmute? >> Yes. Can you hear me? >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Yeah. >> Yes. It's just a minor -- As long as we're correcting wordage, it's a minor technical correction to whereas number 6, redlining began in 1933 with the Homeowners Loan Corporation. Sorry, I just noticed that. So I would propose to change the phrase following World War II, to getting in 1933. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: OK. I asked, do we actually need to put a date in which could be contentious, because I suspect different people could point to different things following World War II? >> Yes, I agree with that. We could just say, it remains a fact that redlining numbers or redlining preventive, that's correct. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: All right. We have a proposed amendment. Is there a [inaudible] this one? And [inaudible] just seconded, we now have an amendment on the floor to move following World War II in the -- at sixth whereas -- actually, the seventh whereas, I think. Maybe it's the eighth. No, it's the seventh. So, that we don't [inaudible] about when redlining started. Is [inaudible] of this proposal. [Inaudible] Thomas, unmute yourself. >> So this, I think, could be treated as a friendly amendment. I think the language around minority community has changed, since the issue is not the size of the community or the numbers in the community, rather, the response to the social and industrial system in community. So the appropriate language shouldn't that be minority sized and puts the onus on the society rather than on the community. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: So you want them to say minority communities and that whereas you want to say minoritized communities? >> Yes. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Does the amender take that as a friendly addition to his [inaudible]? >> I do. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: A seconder agree with that. If so, Matthew Berlin, please indicate so you do. So the amendment now changes two things, and that whereas gets rid of following World War II and turns minority into minoritized. Is there additional discussion of this proposed amendment? I am not seeing any. So, Heather, why don't we vote on this amendment on the seventh whereas? Voting yes would make the changes you see in front of you, voting no would leave the document as it is. >> Do you see the poll in front of you? And you notice the second vote, I think we're almost -- everyone voting. Closing in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: All right, that one goes through, so the seventh whereas has been change. We're now going back to the document as amended. Are there further wording changes or other comments that anyone wants to make? >> Yes. Actually, in keeping with the recent adjustment for minority to main part 5 communities, I was just reading through the document and was wondering, again, whether Matthew would -- or whether the proposal would be friendly to consistency in language so that that language needs throughout the document where minority have guest. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Is it more than in any other one place? I see it in the ninth, whereas, I don't see it anyplace else? >> No, it is throughout the document. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: It is. >> Let's see. I think the minority appears four times in the doctor. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Yes, but it's only as an adjective that you want to make change on it. >> In the, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 whereas also talks about members of minority communities based on stereotypes. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Yes, that's the one that I've identified in addition. Do you think there's more than that? >> The ninth one it says with [inaudible] -- >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Yes. >> -- impacts on women, members of minority communities. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: So why don't you simply propose that everywhere you see minority communities that it becomes minoritized communities? I -- They're hard find them. >> That's my proposition. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Is there a second? You will enter in fact -- I have a second. All right, we now have an amendment to change the minority community to minoritized communities in all places in the document. Is there any discussion further of that proposal? I am not seeing any. >> [Inaudible] I think we have a comment. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Yeah, yeah, please. >> Yes. So is there -- I mean, what's the difference between minoritized and marginalized? Is that just softer? I mean, is there a reason why it's not marginalized? >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Kirsten, do you want to answer that question, since you are, I assume, the original author, with someone? >> Professor Kirsten Wolf: Sorry, did you call -- do you -- I think that either would be suitable. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: But now we have a proposal to change minority communities to minoritized communities. That's the amendment in front of us. Are there other comments on that? Do you want to speak again, [inaudible]? >> Well, you know, I just thought marginalized sounds better, but I'm not sure what the majority of people think, so. >> So it had at least it seems to be that there's preference for marginalized. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: Well, let's -- I will go back to the -- to our person who proposed this amendment and asked would you consider it a friendly amendment to change minoritized to marginalized or does that mean something different for you? I want to move to open up. [Inaudible], do you want to address that question? >> That would be fine. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: As the seconder agree with making that change into the amendment? I need an agreement from the person who seconded. I'll go back to find it here. >> Yeah, I agree. I just had it in the chat before. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: I think you are. OK. All right, we now have eighth amendment that would change every place in the document where it says minority communities into marginalized communities. That is the amendment in front of us. Does anyone have any further discussion on that amendment? Let us vote. Voting yes would make a change throughout the document. Voting no, we'll leave it as minority communities throughout the document. Here's your yes or no voting. >> I'll give you a couple seconds more. Closing in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. I got share the results, but it's -- sorry, they're online. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: [Inaudible] yes, I assume. >> Yes. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: All right, so that passes. All right, we are getting close to losing a quorum here. And making further changes might mean this simply doesn't get adopted. So unless you have something really important to change, I'm going to encourage us to move towards the vote on the amended document. Does anyone want to argue with that or propose a further amendment? And we'll wait five seconds and then I'm moving to vote. All right, let us vote the amended document as you see in front of you. All those in favor of the document as amended indicate by pushing yes, on the yes button. Those opposed push no. And Heather, you can put that vote up. This is to vote on the entire document as amended. >> OK. I'll give you a second more. And we'll close it in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. >> Chancellor Rebecca Blank: The resolution passes. Thank you all for your patience through this. And thank you, Kirsten, for bringing that forward. That was our last item of business. And I am therefore going to declare the agenda is completed and this meeting is closed. And thank you all for your time and attention. Thank you.