Minutes passed October 31, 2016
Meeting notes for October 24, 2016
UC members present: Amasino (arrived 2:18), Bowers, Broman, Litovsky, Wanner, Wendt (chair)
Others present: S. Smith, M. Felber, J. O’Meara, J. Richard, J. Smith, J. Skubish, C. Lane-Flehinger, L.D. Oakley, H. Daniels, Jeff Brown
Returning chair Amy Wendt called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Broman provided carrot cake for the occasion. Wendt reminded everyone of the Diversity Forum and called attention to the ASM resolution on indigenous peoples, to be discussed during the senate agenda portion of the meeting. Minutes of the meeting of October 17, 2016, approved. Jack O’Meara reminded everyone about the upcoming PROFS Steering Committee meeting, which will be attended by Regent President Millner and focus on the state budget. O’Meara and Michelle Felber also highlighted upcoming meeting with Ken Goldstein as part of alumni events, where he will present his research on polling.
Following up on its acceptance of the HIB ad hoc committee report at the previous meeting, the UC discussed how to move forward. Issues considered included how to make sure all appropriate parties see the report and how to most effectively implement the recommendations. Some elements already in motion, mostly through the Vice Provost for Faculty and Staff. Recommendation made for creation of a “guided executive summary” directing specific audiences to specific sections. Consensus that some group(s)/unit(s) need to be responsible for making sure key stakeholders are held accountable; currently this responsibility falls to the UC as the owners of the report. Following ample discussion, the UC agreed to bring this topic up with the provost to determine next steps.
Chief Diversity Officer Patrick Sims and CDCC Chair L.D. Oakley presented the CDCC annual report for the last 3 years. Major issues and activities during reporting period include finalizing leadership transition; assembling, publishing, and implementing Diversity Framework; and clarifying CDCC purpose, function, and membership. Ample discussion followed, focusing primarily on latter. UC agreed with Oakley and Sims that CDCC has to choose between being voice/forum for communicating campus concerns to CDO (advisory role) and serving as portal for information and reports. The latter has been a primary focus, but all present agreed that the former is where the committee’s focus should be. Litovsky suggested (and others all agreed) that point #6 in the report, highlighting the CDCC’s role in providing direction and accountability, should be highlighted. UC also suggested changing point #11 (and others) to stress that CDCC “participates in” certain activities, but is not the locus of them. After discussion of report, Sims informed the committee that Jeff Brown will be helping the CDO through the transition brought on by Carl Hampton’s departure to UW System. There was also brief discussion about the upcoming diversity forum and about the CDO/designee’s role on committees.
The UC discussed the November Faculty Senate agenda in some detail. UC would like to invite Michael Lehman in to discuss IT governance presentation. The UC unanimously rejects increasing the number of faculty seats on the already large ITC, especially since faculty are being tapped for the other “boxes” of proposed new IT structure. Perhaps divisional distribution should be revisited; in order to get broad user representation, faculty divisions may not be most appropriate way to divide up committee. If committee participation rates are low, experience dictates that solution should be identifying the most appropriate people, not increasing overall numbers. The creation of an ex officio co-chair makes sense. ITC functions will also likely need to be revisited in light of the reorganization of IT governance. It is still unclear what exactly each part of the IT grid will do, and what specific ITC role will be. The UC agreed to keep CDO as ex officio on CURAFA. PTR policy needs “or equivalent” added to references to “department” and “chair.” Discussion about other possible modifications. The UC discussed ASM resolution on indigenous peoples and decided the best approach was to not rush given the number of moving parts. This will not be included on the November Senate agenda, but will still be considered for later in the year.
Director of University Libraries Ed Van Gemert, accompanied by University Library Committee member Yang Bai, discussed library consolidation efforts. Van Gemert explained that consolidation emanated from 2014 library strategic plan. Consolidation report endorsed by ULC in December 2015, the same month that the master facility plan was sent to the governor. Contract signed by governor last week to work with library planning company to consider future; service delivery plan also being worked on. Focus on how library services will be delivered in future and what that will mean for physical footprint of libraries. Van Gemert believes it is possible to continue to provide high quality services without large physical footprint. Each library/collection has its own peculiarities and needs to be considered on its own terms. Ample discussion, especially about Engineering and Health Sciences libraries, funding structures of various libraries, and future of physical books and spaces across campus. UC remains concerned about lack of communication about library changes, especially with units who use specific collections but are not the main stakeholders (e.g., computer science with Wendt Library, etc.). Van Gemert pointed out that, for GLS libraries, no decisions are made without discussions with ULC (and governance groups and others); questions about governance of other libraries have to be directed to the relevant dean’s office.
The UC discussed whether to bring the resolution on solidarity with Muslim members of the community back to the Senate. General support of the resolution, but UC requests the author rethink with a broader religious freedom focus and then meet with the UC with an eye to the December Senate. The UC discussed a new draft System/Regent policy on consensual relationships. Consensus that university lawyers should conduct a line-by-line review and comparison to current policy. Several concerns were raised, including vagueness of “advisory,” impact of including “potential” relationships, general “prohibitive” rather than “management” tone, potential impact on those already in relationships where one decides to go back to school (for example), and shift of “reporting” elements to later in document, after relationships are already prohibited. Although the UC understands the need for a System policy, and recognizes that parts of current campus policy could be improved, general sense of this document is that it is a mess and creates many unintended consequences. Wendt adjourned the meeting at 3:06 p.m.