Topics Map > Office of the Secretary of the Faculty > Faculty Senate > University Committee
University Committee Meeting Minutes 2015-09-28
University Committee Meeting Minutes
approved October 5, 2015
September 28, 2015
UC members present: Broman, Edwards, Litovsky, Meyerand (chair), Wanner, Wendt
Others present: S. Smith, Richard, O’Meara, Felber, J. Smith, Daniels
1. Meeting called to order: 1:00 PM.
2. Wendt briefed the UC on the CIC Faculty Governance Leadership meeting at Illinois. Much of the meeting was on faculty compensation and benefits. In particular, Wendt called the UC’s attention to the following report: www.senate.illinois.edu/sc_crcfinal.pdf.
3. Edwards reminded UC of upcoming listening sessions on proposed revisions to FPP Ch. 10. Purpose of sessions is to provide context and explanation as needed, but primarily to get feedback and input.
4. Minutes of the meeting of September 21, 2015, approved.
5. Legislative update (PROFS). O’Meara informed the UC that there is no news on the fetal tissue bill and PROFS is accompanying proposed changes to state civil service.
6. Ombuds update (Tom Schaub)
a. Schaub informed the UC that Ombuds staff is now 5, with addition of SMPH member.
b. Schaub indicated that number of visitors is unsurprisingly up (by 14%). Largest percentage is academic staff (58% of visitors; AS represents 37% of campus). Number of students has also increased. Ombuds now presents at graduate student ethics and diversity workshops, which has increased awareness. Visibility also increased by inclusion of Ombuds resource in information sent with layoff notices, participation in campus events, and collaboration with units and committees.
c. In response to a question about what visitors seek from the Ombuds, Schaub replied that it is mostly clarification of process, sometimes specific questions about retirement and health care.
d. General areas of concern continue to be those that arise out of performance evaluation and supervisory relationships. Broman suggested bringing Ombuds into discussions of the ad hoc committee on faculty supervisors.
e. Once provost has reviewed annual report, Ombuds will send it to UC for review.
f. Ample discussion, including how ombuds are recruited and appointed, when in the process people tend to come in (typically late, when crisis has developed; ombuds try to emphasize benefit of coming earlier than later), and relations with EAO (at least monthly meetings, physical proximity, still refining distinction between the two offices and working on using same vocabulary and improving data).
g. Schaub indicated that there does seem to be increase in cases involving hostile and intimidating behavior since new policy passed. Wendt updated UC on implementation committee, which will emphasize communication and where people find information, training, and so on. Schaub emphasized that a portal to access is key. Stressful environments is first among trends they are observing, which is not just hostile and intimidating behavior, also insecurity.
7. Review: Faculty Senate agenda
a. Smith walked the UC through the October 5 Senate agenda. Ample discussion.
b. UCC changes will be postponed to November meeting due to packed October agenda, need to ensure faculty purview over course proposals maintained, and uncertainty as to timing of membership change.
c. Discussion about requested addition of AFT document to agenda.
8. Ample discussion about how to incorporate input on Chapter 10 proposal from listening sessions and other sources. Edwards and Meyerand will work with SOF to compile and condense information for Senate presentation. Consensus that document is now in UC’s and Senate’s hands so no need for additional ad hoc committee meeting.
9. UC reviewed and discussed draft charge to ad hoc committee on academic calendar. (Charge to ad hoc committee on IRBs postponed to discussion with VCRGE.)
10. Provost update (Sarah Mangelsdorf)
a. Broman asked how credit for teaching is being assigned under the new budget model, particularly as regards interdisciplinary and cross-departmental courses. Mangelsdorf replied that credit follows both instructor and program and that at the provost’s level of aggregation, there is not much difference, but that could be different within a college so tracking both will show any discrepancies.
b. Mangelsdorf indicated that search committee for dean of nursing is being finalized.
c. Mangelsdorf said that a search for Arts Institute director will be conducted later this year. Interim director is now in second year. Mangelsdorf indicated that this will be national search, in keeping with the UAPC approval of the Arts Institute. Ample discussion about Arts Institute structure and mission. Will need to clarify whether director has to be faculty member. When UC is asked for nominations, it should keep in mind balance across different types of schools involved in the arts.
d. First of three dean reviews scheduled for this year has been charged.
e. Wendt brought forward a question from a department chair who was wondering if WARF funds could be used as bridge to address hiring needs, specifically target of opportunity and strategic hires. Mangelsdorf suggested discussing this with the chancellor and the VCRGE, as they are the ones who make the WARF ask.
11. Chancellor update (Rebecca Blank)
a. Blank welcomed any input for her “state of the university” address.
b. Blank asked the UC if the discussed calendar changes were on track and the UC and SOF answered they will be on the October Senate agenda.
c. Blank asked what feedback had been received on Chapter 10 proposal. Edwards summarized current status. Broman raised related issue of regents’ input and interconnectedness of post-tenure review with protections discussion. Edwards provided update on PTR committee work. Ample discussion.
d. Blank updated the UC on the fetal tissue bill.
e. Although the governor’s leaving presidential race pushed AAU sexual assault survey off front pages, Blank emphasized that this work is still a priority and perhaps even helped by the fact that now follow-up can be done without media glare.
f. Blank will take proposal to reaffirm commitment to WI residents while also creating extra leeway on out-of-state residents to Regents Friday. She will send proposal to UC once public. [Blank later shared the following blog post on this topic: https://chancellor.wisc.edu/blog/why-new-admission-policies-are-needed-to-meet-wisconsins-need-for-a-strong-workforce/.] President Cross indicated strong support and no negative feedback so far from individual regents. All seem to recognize that this is the right thing to do for the state economy, not just for this campus. Much discussion about admissions and tuition. Our out-of-state tuition rate is still well below the median even with recent increase, and professional school tuition ranks near the bottom nationwide.
12. Employee Assistance update (Sherry Boeger, Charles LaTorre)
a. Boeger distributed brochures and provided an introduction to EAO and description of services. One current priority is to increase visibility. Breakdown of customers: 46% AS, 11% faculty, 40% US.
b. LaTorre, a recent hire with wellness focus, provided background on his work and concept of “wellness,” another current focus of EAO.
c. Discussion, including EAO capacity, work/home stressors, getting information to new hires.
d. Broman reported recent positive experiences with EAO on a departmental topic. He and rest of UC support effort to increase visibility, but question how useful Senate is as conduit of this kind of information. Broman also suggested bringing EAO into discussions of the ad hoc committee on faculty supervisors
13. VCRGE update (Marsha Mailick)
a. Mailick distributed draft plan for transforming URC into governance group, modeled on UAPC. Ample discussion, which will be continued next week. UC will use this input to inform proposal to Senate in November.
b. Edwards brought Mailick up to speed on the U of Chicago survey issue. After substantial discussion, it was agreed that Edwards will draft a letter for Mailick’s signature to the Chicago I RB expressing UW-Madison’s consternation and asking that the data be destroyed. Mailick and the UC concurred that the letter must be clear that we do not know what the Chicago IRB approved and the concern is with process, not methodology or survey design.
c. Discussion of the two VCRGE-related resting committees, whose functions will be incorporated into the URC charge, potentially into a subcommittee of the URC. Lots of related discussion about the new compliance director and the “solar system” of compliance that spans campus.
d. Discussion of recent proposal for general safety committee. While UC and chancellor have concerns about overly capacious nature of such a committee, they agreed that it could serve useful function if structured appropriately. Mailick informed UC that there is a group working on this very issue. SOF will close loop to make sure that Thomadsen (who sent the original proposal) is included in VCRGE-led discussion.
14. Meeting adjourned: 3:51 PM.