Topics Map > Office of the Secretary of the Faculty > Faculty Senate > University Committee
University Committee Meeting Minutes 2014-12-08
approved December 15, 2014
December 8, 2014
Present: Broman, Edwards, Fair (chair), Meyerand, Petty, Wendt
1. Meeting called to order: 12:30 PM.
2. Discussion of workloads and related issues.
3. Handout on updating strategic framework distributed.
4. Minutes of the meeting of December 1, 2014, approved.
5. Discussion in preparation for Dean Golden.
6. Clarification of 7th-year probationary reviews and appeals: Edwards briefed the UC on request from divisional committee. Lack of specific guidance has resulted in differing interpretations. Questions to be resolved: (1) Is there such a thing as a 7th-year review? (2) If so, how does it differ from appeal or reconsideration? (3) What are the triggers and requirements of a 7th-year review? Consensus that FPP language needs to be clarified. Office of the Secretary of the Faculty will suggest names for an ad hoc committee that will be charged by the UC to suggest changes to FPP.
7. Revision to FPP 6.48. Composition of Recreational Sports committee. Approved by UC for Febrary Faculty Senate.
8. Wendt 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: 1:04PM.
9. Request for a faculty/academic staff split appointment denied unanimously.
10. Leave request returned for clarification.
11. Discussion of upcoming committee vacancies.
12. Broman moved to reconvene in open session and Petty 2nd. Motion passed 1:21 PM.
13. Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration update (Darrell Bazzell)
a. Budget update: Situation parallels that of four years ago. Situation will be exacerbated by several spending and revenue items. Discussion.
b. Update and discussion of UW System announcement of cost-saving plan.
c. Travel policy update: UW-Madison recommends use of Concur/Fox while UW System requires it. Utilization has increased significantly. System is still pressuring for mandatory usage, but there are significant barriers. Bazzell suggested bringing in UW System personnel to discuss.
d. 9 over 12 update: Will be implemented by next fall. May not include faculty on research grants due to effort reporting complexities, tax ramifications, and contract year limitations. Bigger issue on other campuses than at Madison.
e. UC asked about the possibility of a 2nd round of research funding. There has been no decision yet and nothing is forthcoming imminently.
14. Clinically active faculty (Robert Golden)
a. SMPH has three tracks of “faculty” – tenure, CHS, and CT. (The latter would be “clinical” most places; they are physicians practicing all over the state and are vitally important.) Golden explained SMPH concern that non-promoted tenure track have to leave the university and take their patients with them, creating losses and competition issues for UW Hospital. Not a common occurrence, but is a serious issue when physicians with strong integration in the community do not get promoted (often in part because of heavy clinical duties) and go to competitors.
i. Golden proposed crafting a process narrowly defined to these situations. One possibility would be for “up or out” to not be applicable to CT track and to allow for those not promoted in other tracks to transfer to CT track. Could attach limitations (one-year contract, for ex.). This solution would not undermine other units since CT is unique to medicine.
ii. Track changing is easy in first 3 years. Afterwards have to make case that workload changed.
iii. UC recommended crafting internal systems in SMPH to encourage track changes before candidates go up for tenure. This would cover approximately 80% of cases.
iv. For remaining 20% (decreasing each year), problem arises when department thinks candidate deserves promotion and divisional denies. Suggestion of a possible separate appeal process for this group. This would not be an appeal of tenure, but of whether individuals could continue in CT track. Appeal could be to UC/Provost as rules waiver.
v. Consensus that more clinical tenured faculty are needed on divisional committees who understand these issues.
vi. Golden will draft new policy and submit for comment in next few months.
b. Broader issue: While campus has done a brilliant job of linking post-tenure review with equity compression tools, there is still a need for a way to reduce salary of those who are flaunting tenure and underperforming. Those who do not perform at expected levels create financial pressures and morale problems. Discussion.
15. 2:10 PM: Broman made his final early exit of the year.
16. Chancellor update (Rebecca Blank)
a. Discussion of WSJ story on Cross’s press release and related issues. What is proposed is not a major change to the way we do business fundamentally.
b. Update on compliance: clear need for more centralized attention across all issues campuswide. Likely that this coordinating position will go in Legal Affairs, where HIPAA is already located. Coordinator position will be posted early in 2015 and filled by spring, following campus meetings.
c. Discussion of executive compensation.
d. Discussion of UVA evolving story and dangers of publicness of debate.
e. Update on budget.
f. Discussion of system engineering proposals.
17. Meeting adjourned: 2:57 PM.