a.Sweeney reviewed structure of his office and its three pillars: strategic partnerships, headed by Hoslet and including state, federal, corporate, and community relations; marketing services and branding strategy, headed by Dickinson; and University Communications, comprising Inside UW, student weekly, and social media.

b.Sweeney distributed and discussed a summary of Joint Finance Committee actions.

c.Sweeney updated the UC on activities and developments since his last appearance: 

i. release of economic impact report, which has been very positively received and provides a useful outreach tool;

ii. opening and first months of the campus presence in south Madison at Villager Mall, which has been a huge success and well received by the community, booked almost every hour of every day with substantial involvement from faculty, staff, and students in programming; Sweeney offered the UC a tour;

iii. activities surrounding UW’s Final Four appearance, including good press about research engine and other off-court activities; and

iv. high rating of football team graduation rate, which UW is justifiably proud of, but which has gotten little national coverage as it happens every year.

a. Mailick and Moss discussed working group on scientific core resources, which generated a long report with lots of specifics, but more importantly a framework for information flow and governance and capabilities of research core resources. 

b. Moss projected slides reviewing the process of the working group, which was divided into four subcommittees (governance, operations, evaluation, external customers) and highlighted group’s conclusions:

i. Hardly any core can survive on fee-for-service, thus need for a subsidy plan.

ii. Identified 75 cores and believes there are many more, probably 100 fee-for-service on campus in some form. Goal was not necessarily to be comprehensive, but rather strove to develop a broad policy.

iii. All cores have a user advisory group (UAG) although not all are active. 

iv. Created concept of “core clusters,” each with a core cluster coordination committee, which in particular should weigh in on new cores and coordinate across cores. There are also stand-alone cores. 

v. Recommendation to create advisory committee for coordination and oversight of all cores that would point both to VCRGE and to the cores and core coordination committees.

vi. Would like to see a campus registry of cores.

c.Implementation: need to appoint leadership over what is currently a multimillion-dollar enterprise without coordination (leading to competition, inefficient use, etc.). 

d.Mailick underscored value of the framework and related innovative thinking. This would not change control of cores; participation is voluntary. There are no “sticks” but the “carrots” could be significant (access to selection as campus applicant for federal funding, shared information and increased awareness of what resources exist, possible generation of 136 funds, connections to WARF funding, etc. These “carrots” already existed, but this is a rational approach to distributing resources.

e.Ample discussion. 

a. Mangelsdorf suggested that working group studying summer terms and possible revisions to summer calendar join her at next UC meeting to discuss their findings. 

b. Mangelsdorf (and Broman) will attend the June Board of Regents meeting in Milwaukee. Discussion about UWS working groups and concern about tepid System statements on tenure and shared governance. 

c. Edwards asked if a document was forthcoming outlining specifically how the budget cuts would be rolled out in light of Joint Finance Committee decisions. Mangelsdorf replied that the plan already under way would continue as that combination of cuts and revenue changes was not projected to close even the slightly reduced budget gap. How the cuts will be distributed across System is still unknown. 

d. UC updated Mangelsdorf on its discussion with engineering dean on chair selection.

e.S ecretary of the faculty explained revision to procedural aspect of rule waivers (workflow). Mangelsdorf agreed that changing FPP to reflect practice is best approach. OSOF will work to remove outdated guidelines across campus. 

f. Litovsky asked about best practice models on parental leave and whether new policies on workload (as opposed to straight leave) could be tailored for different schools and colleges. Wendt explained that the Committee on Economic Benefits has been addressing precisely this issue and will have a draft report soon. New HR system has flexibilities that would allow for this. Ample discussion. 

a.Kerner and Langer presented drafts of three new travel policies: 

i. increased reimbursement rates for meals and incidentals (GSA rates, per diem instead of per meal, no receipts);

ii. adjusted lodging rates (GSA rate for whole state, still evaluating, existing exceptions for conference hotels and the like would still apply); and 

iii. submission deadline for reimbursement requests in order to comply with IRS rules (considering 90 days, which is upper end of peer institutions, after which no reimbursement).

b.Ample discussion.

a. Maas updated UC on Office 365 rollout, which is going well even in units that were not completely on board; will be completed by end of December. Budget cuts accelerated project somewhat.

b. Maas updated UC on campus computing infrastructure (was data center aggregation), which is addressing deteriorating facilities and related expense. Making progress; participation on a volunteer basis. CIO offers equipment rental. Advanced computing infrastructure is good example of resources pulled together for faculty access. Will likely take a number of years until everything is completed.

c. Maas updated UC on Enterprise IT Decision-Making, to address duplication of investment, cross-campus communication. Goal to invest where highest priorities are. Last part will be research computing as it is the most personal. Once admin, other projects completed, will look at storage, virtual servers, etc. for research. 

d. Discussion about cores (VCRGE) and HIPPA requirements in SMPH. 

e. Maas discussed data governance, concern that faculty barred access to information needed to study student success. Legitimate institutional data uses (research, dept. business) requiredata governance structure that allows for stewardship. 

f. CIO has identified two faculty positions to be on council, targeting specifically teaching and learning. Edwards raised issue of data requests through IRBs and educational researchers getting caught in middle. Suggestion that one of the faculty members be person who has dealt with this kind of obstacle. Input from VCRGE. 

g. Discussion of learning analytics and data management plans for (NSF) proposals. CIO intends to plan more secure sites on campus where data can be stored.

h. Maas updated UC on pilots (3 this semester) of the Unizin/Canvas learning management system. General student feedback positive, but assessment ongoing. Five more pilots this summer and 10-15 for fall. Goal is comprehensive analysis of new system, including hands-on experience for faculty and students before decision.

i. Zweibel provided an update on the Information Technology Committee.  

a.The UC considered and unanimously approved 3 tenure clock extension requests and one leave of absence with clock extension. 

b.The UC considered a request for a leave of absence with an accompanying tenure clock extension. Request sent back to department for additional information and clarification and possible resubmission as temporary assignment instead. 

a. O’Meara summarized Joint Finance Committee’s omnibus motion. Reduced cut, merit, and Chemistry building are positives; tenure and shared governance provisions are not. 

b. Petty updated UC on legislative strategy meeting.

c. Ample discussion on strategies, messaging, and responses. 

d.Proposed joint statement by chancellor and UC not seen as meeting needs of both administration and faculty.