April 20, 2015

Present: Broman, Edwards, Fair (chair), Meyerand, Petty, Wendt

1. Meeting called to order: 1:00 PM.

2. Campus Master Plan (Gary Brown, Aaron Williams)

a. Brown presented (PowerPoint) an overview of the 2015 Campus Master Plan process, public rollout of which will begin next week. The master plan does not include detailed building utilization studies or facility condition assessments, which are conducted at the college/unit level. 

b. Brown also updated the UC on outcomes of the 2005 plan, which included among its goals sustainability (now part of the way campus does business), community, academic, and research connections (57 done or in development), and enhancing student life (much of which has already been completed). 

c. Brown reviewed the committee and review structure for the master plan, highlighting portions which include faculty representation, and described the schedule for public input and approvals.

d. Ample discussion with maps and expressions of personal interests.

3. University Research Council (Marsha Mailick, Mark Cook)

a. Mailick and Cook updated UC on URC activities and plans. As initial URC works on developing policies and procedures, the UC will continue to serve as the governance group for the VCRGE. A working document posted on the VCRGE website describes URC functions, which will continue to evolve. Consensus that document should include a clear indication of its provisional nature. Plan is to formally incorporate the URC into FPP through the Faculty Senate by end of 2015-16 academic year. 

b. Ample discussion of ideal structure, FPP language, possible inconsistencies between working group report and faculty document 2500, and how best to address concerns and anxieties of various stakeholders.

c. Consensus that VCRGE should be more visible to Senate. State of Research address will be included as part of Senate annual calendar. 

4. Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs update (Ray Taffora)

a. UC asked what options the Madison campus and the Board of Regents have for protecting shared governance and tenure if they are removed from state statute (with or without public authority). 

b. Taffora stated that the answer for the Board of Regents is much more straightforward. Assuming the BOR retains its current “necessary or convenient” powers, it would have full authority to implement shared governance and tenure protections. The answer for individual campuses is less clear. The BOR delegation of powers to campuses is not as straightforward as the state’s delegation to the BOR. Campuses cannot act inconsistently with what the BOR might do. 

c. All of the foregoing, as well as any other scenarios, depends on precisely what legislature says. If they simply line out tenure and/or shared governance, BOR has plenty of authority to either pass it itself or delegate it (expressly) to campuses. 

d. Taffora pointed out that those with tenure (and arguably those currently in the tenure track) hold a property right that could not be taken away. Whether the state could mandate change in workload needs closer analysis, but an appointment letter in conjunction with customs and practices at the time of appointment would constitute a contract. Ample discussion.

e. UC asked about the issue of sovereign immunity and Taffora agreed that Regent Walsh raised a valid concern.  

5. Meyerand moved and Edwards 2nd to convene in closed session pursuant to Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) and (f) to discuss personnel matters. Motion passed: 2:32 PM 

a. The UC considered and unanimously approved four tenure clock extensions. 

b. The UC discussed membership and chair nominations for the post-tenure review committee. The UC opted for co-chairs, one to be appointed from the committee and the other from the UC. 

6. Broman moved and Edwards 2nd to reconvene in open session. Motion passed: 2:40 PM.

7. Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2015, approved.

8. Review of faculty election results. 

9. Discussion of charge for ad hoc committee on post-tenure review. UC approved. Secretary of the Faculty will contact committee nominees and charge committee. 

10. Legislative update (PROFS). O’Meara briefed UC on meetings with legislators and staffs. Ample discussion.

11. Athletics Board update (Mark Covaleski, David Gardner) 

a. Despite some differences on language, Covaleski agrees with the basic idea behind the proposed plan for increasing representation on high-profile hiring process. Gardner stated that draft version submitted to UC removes outside group requirement and other items, focusing on encouraging rather than requiring diverse representation.  Consensus that new language is a big step forward, defining a process that allows for concerns to be addressed while recognizing particular needs of this kind of hire. Ample discussion, particularly of process moving forward. 

b. UC stressed its position that this kind of change is important and that the Athletic Board should be facilitating shared governance. UC endorses this change to avoid situations where shared governance is ignored, making UW look bad and disenfranchising faculty, staff, and students. 

12. UC discussed policy guidelines for UAPC that were developed in 2011 by an ad hoc committee. Neither the chair of that committee nor the UC know whether these guidelines, which are published on the APIR website and effectively expand UAPC authority over centers, were ever approved by the Faculty Senate.

13. HR Design (Judith Burstyn, Anjali Sridharan, Bob Lavigna)

a. Lavigna distributed and reviewed a handout (“HR Design Status – University Committee”) on the implementation of the HR redesign, which will be effective July 1. Nothing in budget bill inhibits/prevents moving forward as planned. 

b. New HR Design is culmination of 4 years of redesign aimed at making sure we attract, develop, and retain the best staff. 

c. Ample discussion.

14. Meeting adjourned: 4:22 PM.