Topics Map > Office of the Secretary of the Faculty > Faculty Senate > University Committee
University Committee Meeting Minutes 2015-10-12
approved October 19, 2015
October 12, 2015
UC Members present: Broman, Edwards, Litovsky, Meyerand (chair), Wanner, Wendt
Others present: S. Smith, Vanness, Radomski, McFadden, Felber, Daniels, Franco-Morales, Burstyn
1. Meeting called to order: 1:02 PM.
2. Wendt called attention to CIC statement of support for faculty at University of Iowa following vote of no-confidence. Meyerand encouraged UC members to review document, which will be on agenda for discussion next week.
3. Edwards asked whether there are guidelines for hosting legislators on campus. Nobody was aware of any specific guidelines, but generally recommended to let (Interim VCUR) Hoslet know and also work with deans’ offices, many of which have their own processes. PROFS would also appreciate being kept in the loop. Suggestion was made for VCUR to develop general guidelines along lines of what UW Communications has for press requests.
4. Edwards reported that the Morgridge event at WID was fabulously successful.
5. Minutes of the meeting of October 5, 2015, approved.
6. Legislative update (PROFS): O’Meara updated UC on fetal tissue bill, legislative meetings.
7. Comprehensive Campaign update (Alisa Robertson, Mike Knetter, Jim Kennedy)
a. Knetter presented overview and context of campaign launching later in the week. Campaign offers opportunity for increased campus coordination, refreshing of aspirations, and matching with philanthropy prospects, as well as chance to assess visions, priorities, budget, staffing, and strategies to involve volunteers. Expectations: rule of thumb is that a campaign generates 50% more philanthropy than received in same number of years prior.Timeline: public phase will continue through 2020. Early leadership gifts have exceeded expectations in terms of both size and structure. Slogan: All ways forward. Website (allwaysforward.org) will focus on initiatives and stories of impact. Priorities (identified by chancellor): student support, educational experience, faculty excellence, research and innovation. Human capital focus. Knetter sees faculty as stewards of the campaign and students as energy source and inspiration, motivation.
b. Discussion about merit-based scholarships. Donors interested in all areas; many gravitate to merit naturally, while others are passionate about need-based.
c. Litovsky asked how diversity fits with campaign. Knetter reported that it is a focus and has already met with great success in terms of gifts. Follow-up question about funds for faculty recruitment. There is no particular program of giving aimed at that, but trying to create new faculty awards.
d. Litovsky asked about non-faculty, non-student (i.e., staff) relationship to campaign. Robertson explained that staff are included in partnership piece, as well as broader categories around experience and boundaries. Knetter recognized difficulty of staff-related fundraising as it does not (yet) lead to kinds of endowments that faculty and students can attract. Foundation is very open to suggestions.
e. Wanner asked about levels of endowment needed for individual items, recognizing that the aggregate numbers can be overwhelming. Knetter indicated that professorships require a $1M endowment, chairs $2M, distinguished chairs $3M.
f. Wendt asked about the use of non-101 funding as bridge, especially during periods of hiring freeze. Perhaps a question for VCFA; in terms of gifts, this is a situational issue that could be addressed in a targeted, rather than campaign-wide way.
8. Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration update (Darrell Bazzell)
a. Broman asked how deferred maintenance is reckoned and how much of a burden it will become in new budget climate. Bazzell replied that this is definitely a problem. Need to distinguish between depreciation and what we need to do to keep campus open. Ongoing maintenance budget should be about $100M (absolute minimum: $20-30M), but is now $0. Crisis/emergency needs is different matter, but with no budget, preventative maintenance (to avoid crises) is impossible. Most universities do not rely on state for this, but rather tuition surcharges and other dedicated pots. Significant issue for us because we have relied on annual allocations. Discussion.
b. Litovsky asked about emergency evacuation plans and aging physical plant. Bazzell responded that many old buildings are not ADA compliant and will never be. But there are building-specific plans. Approach used to be address whole building when there’s a remodeling project; no longer able to do this. Discussion.
c. Edwards asked how new tenure protections being discussed would affect salary coverage if faculty were moved to a different unit. Bazzell pointed out that there is no central policy. Hopefully scenario would never arise, but might be looked at no differently than faculty transfers now: worked out between units/deans. Follow-up about whether new budget model might lead to inter-school competition. Bazzell pointed out this will always be situational: have to decide what is attractive about a particular faculty member. New budget model doesn’t allocate to departments; would still be a dean-level negotiation. This issue comes up more with academic staff, particularly related to ALRA. Bazzell would suggest central funds for payouts, followed the next year by assessment that spreads burden. Discussion.
9. Provost update (Sarah Mangelsdorf)
a. Rather informal conversation about SERF, kendo, bonding authority.
b. Mangelsdorf asked for input on interactions with ASM, recognizing that central administration made huge mistake not meeting with students prior to out-of-state cap proposal. Ample discussion, which included ASM shared governance rep.
c. Broman raised issue of Regents’ complaints about Admissions office. Not completely clear what issue is, but worth a follow up. Concern seems to be one of style, tone. Ample discussion.
d. Mangelsdorf (and Blank) updated UC on recent campus power outages. Complex series of events still being investigated, but squirrels at least partly to blame.
10. Chancellor update (Rebecca Blank)
a. Campus will be issuing separate voter IDs due to potentially serious problems of single multiuse ID (key, debit, photo, signature, etc.). Want as many people to vote as possible and will work with student orgs and others to get word out. Already issued 1100 and ready for volume as election approaches.
b. Launching Campaign Thursday (Kohl Center), for which many Boards of Visitors in town. Weekend events: alumni lunch, homecoming parade, Morgridge match celebration, and more.
c. Discussion of tenure and layoff proposal. It was ample and involved prognostication.
d. Blank indicated she has received a number of complaints, particularly about process, on the temporary waiver of the out-of-state student cap. She will meet with ASM and others to address those.
i. Now that policy has passed, Blank believes it would be difficult to overstress its value. No longer have to admit 3 WI students for every OOS student while number of WI high school graduates declines. Difference for Admissions office is huge, giving it ability to affect one more of 9 factors in WI-MN-others X applications-admittance-enrollment matrix. Budget implications not yet confirmed, but highly likely this means no further budget cut. Strong commitment to WI grads. 3600 (+) is as high as late 1990s. Incentive to go out and get strongest possible class of WI students.
ii. Ample discussion, including how to increase post-graduation in-state retention rate (currently 15% for OOS students), need for higher profile of WI businesses as part of career opportunities. We can nudge rate up, but fact remains that WI needs more labor, internal sources are not sufficient, and university is one of few institutions that can attract labor.
11. Edwards moved and Wendt 2nd to convene in closed session pursuant to Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) and (f) to discuss personnel matters. Motion passed: 2:55 PM.
a. The UC considered and unanimously approved 2 dual role waivers, with restrictions.
b. The UC considered a request to revise an earlier waiver to hire a former probationary faculty member into the academic staff. Registering concern for the workload of the academic staff member (which is not the purview of the UC), the committee unanimously approved the request.
c. The UC nominated a faculty member for a 1-semester sabbatical replacement on the Committee on Faculty Rights & Responsibilities. The SOF will contact the nominee.
d. The UC discussed nominees for dean of nursing search and screen. Two additional faculty nominees were added to the previously submitted list. The UC also nominated two CHS faculty and unanimously supported their counting towards the faculty majority for the purposes of this committee, in recognition of the fact that CHS faculty, although academic staff, exercise a unique role in health fields.
e. The UC considered and unanimously approved two tenure clock extension requests, one contingent on receipt of a revised letter.
12. Broman moved to convene in open session. Seconded. Motion passed: 3:46 PM.
13. Meeting adjourned: 3:46 PM.