Topics Map > Office of the Secretary of the Faculty > Faculty Senate > University Committee
University Committee Meeting Minutes 2015-09-21
Also present: Smith, Richard, Norman, Felber, Daniels, McFadden, O’Meara, and specific guests identified below
- Meeting called to order: 1:00 PM.
- Announcements and updates
attention to AAU docs and other materials available to the UC.
c. Wendt will be attending CIC shared governance meeting at end of week.3. Consent items:
a. Minutes of the meeting of September 8, 2015, approved.
about recent article by Chris Rickert on tenure protections. UC approves a
response by PROFS, provided that the response is limited to factual corrections
and clarifications and makes clear that the proposal is still a draft and has
not been vetted by faculty or approved by the Faculty Senate. The UC feels
strongly that is important to recognize that new legislation is permissive.
b. PROFS members met with Regent Behling after UWS task force meeting. Consensus that post-tenure review committee’s report should (and will) recognize regent concerns and be responsive to new legislation, especially with regard to real consequences of reviews. Further consensus that this is in keeping with the committee’s mandate and discussions to date. Campus has opportunity to define what constitutes good productivity, teaching effectiveness, and so on, and will craft policy that holds faculty members to that standard. Ample discussion.5. Athletic Board update (Mark Covaleski)
provided an overview of the Board’s composition and activities.
updated the UC on the progress of last year’s proposal to clarify hiring
processes. That proposal was approved by personnel committee, but not
considered by full Board. A subcommittee of the personnel committee continues
to address the topic. Goal is to maintain recognition of market realities,
while further defining the Board’s role in ensuring that academics, compliance,
and student welfare are taken into account. Policy will be comprehensive,
covering all coaches. The Board recognizes that hiring decisions are ultimately
up to the athletic director and chancellor and that the Board does not vote on
hires per se, but rather ensures due diligence on moral and legal aspects and
authority (academics, compliance, and student welfare). Subcommittee working with
Athletics on best way for Board to weigh in on these vital points when hiring
decisions have to be made. Discussion.
updated UC on accomplishments at Big 10 meetings over the summer.
(particularly with soccer and other smaller sports) that travel schedules are
dictated by television. BTN is considering (and seems to agree with) proposal
that some sports be tape-delayed so as not to overly inconvenience student
been made to Big10 (and will eventually go to NCAA) to change policy that
considers travel days as days off as travel is hardly a day off for the student
indicated that a major topic of the summer and a big issue for this year is expiration
of stay on O’Bannon decision (related to licensing revenues for student
athletes). Some schools may start paying athletes $5000/year, to be held in
trust. In addition to budget concerns, it is not clear how the mechanics of
such a trust would be reconciled with state law and institutional policies.
e. The UC presented Covaleski with suggested language on quorum and related issues for the Athletic Board. In addition, the UC recommended that the Board avail itself of the services of its Legal Affairs representative for guidance on parliamentary procedure, open meetings laws, FPP, and so on.6. 1:24 PM – 1:32 PM: Athletics Board update was interrupted by an evacuation drill.
7. Faculty surveys (Jenn Sheridan)
provide overview and context of WISELI climate surveys. WISELI is open to collaborating
with UC to gauge opinions on changing landscape and uncertainty. Existing
WISELI survey is already extensive, but items could be added to gather
information UC is seeking. Next (fifth) wave of survey planned for spring 2016.
Would likely need UC input by end of December. UC questions could be module to
match existing format or separate page. Goal is to make survey as useful to all
faculty as possible.
Diversity Officer also planning a campuswide survey.
discuss and further develop.
considered and unanimously approved one appointment-initial tenure clock extension
b. The UC considered a revised request to hire a former tenure-track faculty member as academic staff. The committee was convinced that the opening was created to address a real need in the unit, that the recruitment and selection process to fill the position was open and transparent, and that the person selected through that process was chosen due to his qualifications and not because of any connection to the unit or the college. Wanner moved approval of the rule waiver request. Seconded. Approved unanimously.
10. Committee appointments
Due to time
constraints, the UC postponed naming IRB committee to future meeting.
considered nominations to serve on the VCUR search and screen. Meyerand will
The UC considered
nominations for an ad hoc committee on children in the workplace and advanced a
nominee and one backup to the Office of the Provost.
considered nominations for the dean of nursing search and screen committee. Recommendations
will be sent to campus high-level search coordinator.
to reconvene in open session. Seconded. Motion passed: 2:19PM.
Lifelong learning update (Jeff Russell)
provided a handout listing priorities and possibilities for Lifelong Learning
during the current academic year.
priorities listed, Russell highlighted establishment of a unified campuswide
noncredit IT infrastructure and growing noncredit programming across campus.
possibilities (or “ideas”) listed, Russell highlighted the creation of a
pathway to make undergraduate admission more friendly for adults in local
community. He also drew attention to efforts with Corporate Relations to meet
with local businesses to determine developmental needs. Whether this campus can
meet those needs and/or scale to deliver is a later question.
Russell called the UC’s attention to the ongoing work of the summer term
implementation committee (on which the secretary of the faculty sits).
including on how units should work with the budget office to determine fee
structures and how Madison compares to other campuses in terms of “flex-capable”
students and pools of candidates for credit for “life experiences.” Mechanisms
to “creditize” life learning and deliver appropriate programming require a
substantially different learner-centered focus.
AAU Sexual Assault Survey (Rebecca Blank, Sarah Van Orman, Lori Berquam)
provided background and context of AAU survey. Documents are widely available.
Campus seeks to be completely transparent and move things forward
collaboratively and expeditiously to further the conversation and address
issues. Blank summarized results, which are that incidents are way too high at
all campuses, including ours. Nothing new was revealed, but now there is data
available. UW has several programs under way and more proposed. Our reporting rate
is higher than peers, but still low. Figures are disturbing and highlight how
difficult the issue is.
Orman, and Berquam all emphasized the need to use this information to advance
general conversation on this campus. Fundamental issue is that we have to
change behavior. Bystander data is particularly shocking. Empowering people to
understand how they intervene is difficult, but imperative.
discussion. Tonight program and other campus activities have resulted in higher
awareness here than among our peers. Housing has been very involved in
addressing topic; incidents in housing are proportional to numbers of
residents, but there is significant opportunity there for additional
interventions. Ample discussion about reasons for low reporting rates,
difficulty of system-wide policies, prevention, alcohol use.
has been appointed to work on this.
highlighted that we cannot put too much weight on any specific number; bottom
line is that they are all too high. She also emphasized that we have a responsibility
to both women and men. Judicial processes are inherently limited. Van Orman
pointed out that accommodations can be made without reporting or going through
interventions, and programs include, among others: first 45 days; don’t be that
guy; Tonight; targeted information for new faculty (and others); emphasis on Friday
classes and Mon/Fri exams and assignments; alcohol.edu; student organizations
(Badger Step Up); parent handbook; and more. Berquam emphasized that we have to
diversify the ways we talk about this, involve all groups, including parents,
and repeat information in different ways. Blank added that the parental role,
especially with sons, is particularly important.
a significant role to play and Blank requested UC leadership on a number of
possible faculty interventions, including class and assignment scheduling
(particularly beneficial to undergraduates) and training and resources on sexual
harassment (particularly beneficial for graduate students).
Due to time
constraints, the UW System information request was postponed. However, UC
members should send to Smith any ideas for responses in anticipation of the
item coming up again in October.
discussed organization of upcoming listening sessions. Main goal is to gather
information, not to have panels holding forth. Want everyone to be heard. While
some presentation and response from committees will be needed, main point is to
discussed the proposal made at its September 8 meeting to create an art
acquisition and disposal committee. Following ample discussion, the UC agreed
that a need has been identified, although not all members are convinced that a
standing committee is necessarily the best solution. Consensus that an
appointed (ex officio-based) committee is more appropriate than a traditional
shared governance committee. Edwards moved that the UC request a proposal from
Einstein, to include (1) the type of committee (ad hoc or standing), (2) its specific
charge, (3) the membership (by position rather than individual), and (4) to
whom the committee would report. Seconded. Approved unanimously.
discussed the recent debate around a survey of UW faculty by a University of
Chicago researcher. Based on significant expressions of concern across campus
(about confidentiality, anonymity, disclosure, context, consent, conflict of
interest, survey design, and much more), the UC agreed that an institutional
response from UW-Madison to the University of Chicago is warranted. Edwards
will discuss with VCRGE the possibility of direct contact with the Chicago IRB
and a possible protest.
informed the UC that the Committee on Committees would like to make proposals
related to the University Research Council. The UC will discuss this with the
VCRGE at its next meeting.
adjourned: 3:43 PM.